-NRLF 


Ibb    Q7b 


ill 

wfiiii 
ill 


LIBRARY 

OP  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


GIFT 

Mrs.  SARAH  P.  WALS WORTH. 

Received  October,  1894. 
Accessions  No.  S^J          •      Class  No. 


REFUTATION 


SUNDRY  BAPTIST  ERRORS, 


PARTICULARLY  AS  THEY  ARE  SET  FORTH  IN  A  RECENT  WORK 


REV.  J.  J.  WOOLSEY, 


AND  IN  THE 


THIRD  ANNUAL  REPORT  OF  THE  AM.  AND  FOR.  BIBLE  SOCIETY. 


BY    EDWIN    HALL, 

PASTOR  OF  THE  FIRST  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCH,  NORWALK,  CT, 


NORWALK,  CT. 

PUBLISHED     BY     JOHN      A.       WEED. 
NEW     YORK: 

OOULD,     NEWMAN,     AND     SAXTONJ      AND 
ROBINSON,     PRATT,     AND      CO. 


.841. 

•.../fifr  okm.: 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1841,  by 

EDWIN     HALL  5 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  for 
the  District  of  Connecticut. 


3-    W.    BENED1C7,   PRINTER,   128    FULTON'ST, 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

Classic  Greek  and  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament.  7 
The  intent  and  bearing  of  the  discussion  concerning 

the  Classic  use  and  the  New  Testament  use.    .        .  16 

The  question  brought  to  an  issue.        ....  17 

The  evidence  conclusive 23 

The  conclusion  further  corroborated 23 

Mr.  Judd  on  Mark  vii.  4 24 

Mr.  Carson  on  Mark  vii.  4. 26 

Mr.  Woolsey's  choice  of  alternatives.            ...  27 

The  Baptists  at  war  with  each  other.           ...  27 

George  Campbell  on  Mark  vii.  4  and  Luke  xi.  38.        .  29 

Professor  Ripley  on  Mark  vii.  4  and  Luke  xi.  38.          ;  31 

The  conclusion.    .        .        .      •  .'"""   .       \  -''('.'      .  36 

Baptist  Missionary  translations.  .        •••«'..-.        .  37 

The  proof  cumulative.        4»    '    •        •        .        .        .  41 

Scriptural  idea  of  Baptism.           .       ..        ...  43 

Our  English  translators  and  our  common  English  Bible.  49 
Defining  the  word  Baptize.          .'       .        .        ,        .  54 
Translating  the  word  Baptize.      .        ,                 .        .  57 
No  new  thing  to  transfer  peculiar  words  from  one  lan- 
guage to  another .        .  61 

To  transfer  the  word  Baptize  into  foreign  languages 

neither  teaches  error  nor  conceals  the  truth.     .        .  64 

Martin  Luther's  version.      .        '.        .       ^t    .        .  71 

The  Peshito-Syriac  version.          .       > .-    '    ;f      .        .  75 

Dutch,  Danish,  and  Swedish  versions.       '  •  *T       .    '""'"•.'*  77 

The  Vulgate ;        .      ;.  79 

Strange  representations.       .        .        *    .    .        .^  -  •*  82 

John  Bunyan.       ..       t*-    •        •        .        •       V       f  86 


IV  CONTENTS. 

Page 

Misstatement  of  the  argument  for  Infant  Baptism,  — 

Quotation  from  Dr.  Miller 89 

Quotation  from  Dr.  Woods.          .....  94 

Quotation  from  Baxter 96 

Claim  to  confidence  on  the  score  of  quotations  from 

Pedobaptist  authors. 97 

Choice  of  witnesses 99 

Abuse  of  Infant  Baptism 100 

Infant  Baptism  and  the  right  of  private  judgment.        .  101 
Infant  Baptism  and  Socinianism.          ....  109 
The  conclusion  of  Mr.  Woolsey's  argument.         .        .  Ill 
Claims  of  Baptists  not   to  belong  to   the  Protestant- 
family 112 

The  Assembly  of  Divines.    .        .        .  .        .114 

The  American  Bible  Society 118 

Liberality  of  Baptists  with  regard  to  foreign  missionary 

translators 126 

Female  communion. 135 

The  Christian  Sabbath 139 

Terms  of  Christian  union.            143 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


THE  following  work  is  designed  to  be  what  its  title  im- 
ports— A  Refutation  of  Sundry  Baptist  Errors.  I  have  fol- 
lowed Woolsey  on  Baptism  and  the  Third  Report  of  the 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  mainly  as  text-books  of 
errors  and  representations,  which,  if  they  do  not  often  appear 
in  print  under  responsible  names,  are  yet,  in  one  shape  or  ano- 
ther, almost  everywhere  to  be  met. 

For  some  time  after  Mr.  Woolsey's  book  appeared,  though 
it  originated  here,  and  though  I  observed  its  errors  and  mis- 
statements,  it  was  not  my  intention  to  task  myself  with  the 
labor  of  refuting  it.  Had  it  been  suffered  to  take  its  natural 
course  of  circulation  from  the  bookseller's  shop,  it  might,  for 
me,  have  pursued  its  course  without  molestation.  But  when 
it  was  industriously  thrust  into  our  families  which  sought  it 
not ;  when  apparently  no  effort  was  spared  to  undermine  the 
faith  of  our  people,  and  to  draw  away  our  youth  and  children 
from  the  old  paths  in  which  their  fathers  have  walked  in  this 
place  since  the  days  of  the  Pilgrims — now  two  hundred  years 
— I  deemed  it  my  duty — in  which  I  could  not  fail,  and  be  faith- 
ful to  the  people  whom  I  serve  in  the  ministry,  to  the  truth, 
and  to  God, — to  stand  in  the  defence. 

If  I  have  unveiled  the  errors  of  that  book,  and  exposed  its 
1 


•  . 

. 

Vi  ADVERTISEMENT. 

misrepresentations,  it  has  been  not  for  the  purpose  of  attack, 
but  of  defence.  I  think  it  will  be  judged  that  I  have  done  it 
with  as  much  kindness  as  justice  to  the  truth  allowed.  I 
have  defended  what  I  solemnly  and  unwaveringly  believe  to  be 
the  truth  and  the  ordinance  of  God.  It  was  a  labor  which  I 
desired  not,  and  in  which  I  found  no  pleasure,  save  the  con- 
sciousness of  laboring  in  the  discharge  of  duty.  I  felt  it  in- 
cumbent on  me  to  bestow  some  labor,  that  the  people  of  God 
may  be  sound  in  the  faith,  and  steadfast  in  his  ordinances ; — 
not  children,  tossed  to  and  fro  by  every  wind  of  doctrine. 

With  greater  pleasure  than  I  began  the  work,  I  now  take 
my  leave  of  it :  fully  purposing, — to  do  as  I  have  hitherto 
done, — to  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  controversy,  unless  it 
shall  very  clearly  appear  to  be  my  duty. 

THE  AUTHOR. 


CLASSIC  GREEK  AND  THE  GREEK  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

ON  page  123  of  his  work,  Mr.  Woolsey  says,  "  The 
number  of  Pedobaptists  are  comparatively  few,  who  will 
hazard  their  reputation,  both  as  scholars  and  Christians,  by 
the  bold  and  sweeping  assertion  that  Classic  Greek  has 
nothing  to  do  in  fixing  the  meaning  and  declaring  the 
sense  of  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament."  "  Such  an 
assertion,"  he  says,  "  may  answer  the  end  for  which  it  is 
intended ;  and  for  a  time  bewilder  the  unsuspecting  in- 
quirer after  truth.  But  when  such  are  informed  that 
many  passages  of  the  New  Testament  are  written  in  the 
most  pure  Greek,  and  the  greater  portion  of  the  words 
are  employed  in  precisely  the  sense  as  when  found  in 
classic  authors,  they  will  withdraw  their  confidence  from 
such  guides  as  would  fain  make  them  believe  that  Scrip- 
ture interpretation  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  usage  of 
words  as  found  in  the  best  Greek  authors."  "I  very 
much  regret,  however,"  says  he,  p.  124,  "that  there 
should  be  any  in  this  enlightened  day,  holding  on  to  sen- 
timents, in  support  of  which  they  find  it  necessary  to  deny 
the  very  close  affinity  which  subsists  between  the  Greek 


8  A   REFUTATION   OF 

of  the  New  Testament  and  that  of  classic  authors."  "  Such 
a  scheme  to  support  sprinkling  for  baptism  is  of  very  re- 
cent invention,  and  can  be  but  of  short  duration.  The 
more  pious  and  judicious,  if  learned,  can  never  be  drawn 
on  to  ground  so  untenable  and  injurious  to  all  philological 
inquiries." 

I  have  marked  several  words  in  these  quotations  with 
italics,  for  the  purpose  of  calling  the  attention  of  the 
reader  to  what  I  consider  a  very  grievous  misrepresen- 
tation. 

Mr.  Woolsey  is  perfectly  right  in  saying  that  "  The 
number  of  Pedobaptists "  is  comparatively  small,  "  who 
will  hazard  their  reputation  by  the  bold  and  sweeping 
assertion  that  classic  Greek  has  nothing  to  do  in  fixing 
the  meaning  and  declaring  the  sense  of  the  Greek  of  the 
New  Testament." 

The  truth  is,  no  Pedobaptist  has  made  such  an  asser- 
tion. No  Pedobaptist  has  "  denied  the  very  close  affinity 
which  subsists  between  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament 
and  that  of  classic  authors.  No  Pedobaptist  has  ever  de- 
nied that  "  the  GREATER  PORTION  of  the  words  are  em- 
ployed in  precisely  the  sense  as  when  found  in  classic 
authors." 

That  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  is  Greek,  and 
that  there  subsists  between  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  that  of  classic  Greek  authors  a  "very  close 
affinity,"  both  in  the  construction  of  phrases  and  in  the 
use  of  the  main  body  of  words,  no  one  has,  to  my  know- 
ledge, ever  denied  or  doubted.  And  yet,  nothing  is  more 
uniformly  agreed  upon  among  the  "  judicious  and  pious 
and  learned,"  than  that  in  many  respects  the  New  Testa- 
ment differs  from  the  classic  Greek,  not  only  in  the  con- 
struction of  phrases,  but  also  in  the  meaning  of  many  and 
very  important  words.  Hence  our  learned  and  elaborate 


BAPTIST   ERRORS. 

Lexicons  of  the  peculiar  New  Testament  Greek.  Hence, 
in  cases  of  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  a  word,  the  New 
Testament  use,  where  it  can  be  shown  to  be  peculiar, 
determines  the  meaning  in  defiance  of  all  the  classic 
Greek  writers  and  lexicons  in  existence.  And  this  is  by 
no  means  a  "  recent  invention."  Says  Professor  Robin- 
son, in  his  preface  to  his  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament, 
"  A  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament,  at  the  present  day, 
presupposes  the  fact,  that  the  language  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment exhibits  in  many  points  a  departure  from  the  idiom 
of  the  Attic  Greek.  This  great  question,  which  so  long 
agitated  the  learned  philologists  of  Europe,  would  seem  at 
present  to  be  put  entirely  at  rest."  The  plan  of  his  lexi- 
con, he  says,  is,  "  In  defining  words,  those  significations 
are  placed  first  which  accord  with  Greek  usage  ;"  "  Then 
follow  those  significations  which  depart  from  Greek  usage, 
and  which  are  either  to  be  illustrated  from  the  Greek  of 
the  Septuagint,  as  compared  with  the  Hebrew,  OR  DEPEND 
SOLELY  ON  THE  usus  LOQUENDi"  (customary  use  of  words,) 
" OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  writers" 

Dr.  George  Campbell,*  whom  our  Baptist  brethren  are 
fond  of  complimenting  as  one  of  the  most  finished  Greek 
scholars  of  modern  times,  maintains  that  many  of  the 
idioms  of  the  New  Testament  Greek  would  not  have  been 
more  intelligible  to  a  classic  Greek  author,  than  Arabic  or 


*  When  I  speak  of  Campbell,  in  the  following  pages,  it  will  of 
course  be  understood  that  I  mean  not  the  American  Campbell, 
the  founder  of  the  sect  of  the  Campbellites,  but  the  late  learned  Dr. 
George  Campbell,  Principal  of  the  Marischal  College,  Aberdeen  ; 
author  of  a  translation  (not  the  Campbellite  translation,)  of  the 
Four  Gospels,  wiih  Preliminary  Dissertations.  Dr.  Campbell  was 
not  a  Baptist,  though  in  an  important  respect  he  favored  their 
views. 

1* 


10  A    REFUTATION    OF 

Persian.  "  Take,"  says  he,  "  the  two  following  for  exam- 
ples. OVK  a6vvarri<rei  *apa  rco  0ew  irav  pripa,  Lllke  i.  37  J  and 

OVK  av  co-coe/j  ifaffa  <™pl»  Matt.  xxiv.  22."  (In  English,  "  With 
God  nothing  shall  be  impossible  ;"  and  "  There  should  no 
flesh  be  saved.")  "  These  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
Greek  are,"  says  Campbell,  "  phrases  which,  in  my  appre- 
hension, would  not  have  been  more  intelligible  to  a  Greek 
author  than  Arabic  or  Persian  would  have  been."  *V«  for 
thing,  and  ™™ OVK  for  no  one,  or  none  ;  oa-pt  for  person,  &c., 
would  to  him,  I  suspect,  have  proved  insurmountable  ob- 
stacles." *  *  "  This,"  says  he,  "  is  but  a  small  speci- 
men— not  the  hundredth  part  of  what  might  be  produced 
on  this  subject."  (Prelim.  Discourse  I.,  vol.  i.  p.  30.) 

"It  is  true,"  says  Campbell,  (Prelim.  Dis.  I.,  Part  2,) 
"  that  as  the  New  Testament  is  written  in  Greek,  it  must 
be  of  consequence  that  we  be  able  to  enter  critically  into 
the  ordinary  import  of  the  words  of  that  tongue."  "  But 
from  what  has  been  observed,  it  is  evident,  that  though  in 
several  cases  this  knowledge  may  be  eminently  useful,  it 
will  not  suffice  ;  nay,  in  many  cases  it  will  be  of  little  or 
no  significancy."  "  Classical  use,  both  in  Greek  and  in 
Latin,  is  not  only,  in  this  study,  sometimes  unavailable, 
but  MAY  EVEN  MISLEAD.  The  sacred  use  and  the  classical 

ARE    OFTEN    VERY   DIFFERENT."* 


*  Since  these  sheets  were  prepared  for  the  press,  the  Biblical 
Repository,  for  April,  1841,  has  been  published,  containing  an  arti- 
cle on  "  The  Bible  and  its  Literature,11  by  Professor  Edward  Ro- 
binson. In  this  article  Professor  Robinson  says,  "  The  language 
of  the  New  Testament  is  the  later  Greek,  as  spoken  by  foreigners 
of  the  Hebrew  stock,  and  applied  by  them  to  subjects  on  which  it 
had  never  been  employed  by  native  Greeks.  After  the  disuse  of  the 
ancient  Hebrew  in  Palestine,  and  the  irruption  of  Western  con- 
querors, the  Jews  adopted  the  Greek  language  from  necessity ; — 


..  — -^jj^^v 
BAPTIST   ERRORS.  11 

I  shall  attempt  to  show,  hereafter,  (when  I  come  to  an 
examination  of  Mark  vii.  4,  and  Luke  ii.  38,)  how  even 
Campbell  has  been  palpably  and  demonstrably  misled  by 
trusting  to  the  ordinary  classic  sense  of  Baptizo,  rather 
than  to  the  sacred  use  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament. 

I  have  already  noticed  (in  my  published  discourses,) 
how  the  Baptist  Bible  Society  have  been  in  like  manner 
misled  with  regard  to  " angel"  one  of  the  words  which 
they  set  down  in  the  glossary  which  they  prefix  to  their 
editions  of  the  New  Testament.  That  glossary  would 
teach  us  to  consider  the  peculiar  infidelity  of  the  Saddu- 
cees  (Acts  xxiii.  8,)  to  consist  in  denying  that  there  is  any 
such  thing  as  a  messenger — instead  of  denying  the  exist- 
ence of  angels.  Carry  out  the  principle  of  their  glossary, 
and  the  passage  must  read,  "  For  the  Sadducees  say  there 
is  no  rising  up,  neither  messenger ',  nor  wind"  The  il- 
lustration might  have  been  carried  out  in  scores  of  exam- 
ples. Thus,  according  to  the  Baptist  Bible  Society,  John 
v.  4,  must  be  read,  "  For  a  messenger  went  down  at  a  cer- 
tain season  into  the  pool,  and  troubled  the  water."  In 


partly  as  a  conquered  people,  and  partly  from  intercourse  of  life,  of 
commerce,  in  colonies,  in  cities,  founded  like  Alexandria  and  others, 
which  were  peopled  with  throngs  of  Jews.  It  was,  therefore,  the 
spoken  language  of  ordinary  life  which  they  learned,  not  the  classic 
style  of  books  which  have  elsewhere  come  down  to  us.  But  they 
spoke  it  as  foreigners,  whose  native  tongue  was  the  later  Aramean; 
and  it  therefore  could  not  fail  to  acquire  upon  their  lips  a  strong 
Semitic  character  and  coloring.  When  to  this  we  add,  that  they 
spoke  in  Greek  on  the  things  of  the  true  God,  and  the  relations  of 
mankind  to  Jehovah  and  to  a  Savior — subjects  to  which  no  native 
Greek  had  ever  applied  his  beautiful  language,  it  will  be  obvious 
that  an  APPEAL  MERELY  TO  CLASSIC  GREEK  AND  ITS  PHILOLOGY,  WILL 

NOT  SUFFICE  FOR  THE  INTERPRETER  OF  THE    NEW  TESTAMENT.       The 

Jewish-Greek  must  be  studied  almost  as  an  independent  dialect, 


A   REFUTATION   OF 


Acts  xi.  13,  we  must  read,  "  And  showed  us  how  he  had 
seen  a  messe?iger  in  his  house  :"  Acts  xii.  15,  "  Then 
said  they,  it  is  his"  (Peter's)  "messenger:"  Matt.  iv.  11, 
"  Then  the  devil  leaveth  him,  and  behold  messengers 
came  and  ministered  to  him  :"  Matt,  xviii.  10,  "  Their 
messengers  do  always  behold  the  face  of  my  Father  in 
heaven  :"  1  Cor.  vi.  3,  "  Know  ye  not,  that  we  shall  judge 
messengers  ?"  Heb.  i.  4,  "  Being  made  so  much  better 
than  the  messengers  :"  Heb.  ii.  16,  "  He  took  not  on  him 
the  nature  of  messengers  :"  and  Heb.  xiii.  2,  "For  some 
have  entertained  messengers  unawares."  Such  "  effulgent 
light"  does  the  Baptist  Glossary  shed  over  the  pages  of 
the  sacred  word.  Who  will  not  henceforth  trust  that 
glossary  for  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize  1 

The  word  Church,  in  like  manner,  our  Baptist  brethren 
have,  by  their  glossary,  interdicted  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  directed  us  to  read  in  its  stead  "  Assembly,'  ' 
which  was  the  sole  meaning  of  the  word  ^K\t<n^  (ekklesia,) 
in  classic  Greek.  The  pagan  Greeks,  like  all  other  pa- 
gans, were  entire  strangers  to  the  very  idea  involved  in 
the  word  church  ;  and  of  course,  when  their  old  word  was 
applied  to  a  new  idea,  it  must  have  a  new  meaning.  But 
our  Baptist  brethren  determine,  that  our  Lord  and  his 
apostles  shall  not  express  any  thing  more  by  the  word  than 
the  old  pagan  idea.  There  shall  be  no  peculiar  polity 
such  as  is  meant  by  an  organized  church  :  there  shall  be 
only  a  "  congregation"  or  an  "  assembly"  spoken  of  in 
the  word  of  God.  Mr.  Woolsey  maintains  that  our  trans- 
lators foisted  in  the  word  church  "  to  support  an  ecclesias- 
tical establishment"  (p.  93)  ;  and  thereupon  quotes  Home 
Tooke  to  show  that  the  very  word  "  church"  is  "  a  most 
wicked  one,  whose  misinterpretation  caused  more  slaugh- 
ter and  pillage  of  mankind,  than  all  the  other  cheats  to- 
gether." According  to  the  Baptist  Bible  Society,  the 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  13 

passage  in  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  must  be  read,  "  And  God  hath 
set  some  in  the  assembly — first  apostles,  secondarily  pro- 
phets," &c.  But  what  assembly  is  here  spoken  of,  in  the 
simple  sense  of  ASSEMBLY  \  .  Does  not  the  apostle  intend 
the  whole  universal  polity  of  Christ's  peculiar  people  on 
earth,  of  which  our  only  word  that  expresses  the  true  idea 
is  the  word  church  ?  So  Eph.  i.  22,  "  And  gave  him  the 
head  over  all  things  to  the  church"  would  be  robbed  of 
its  meaning  were  we  to  read  it  "  Head  over  all  things  to 
the  assembly."  So  in  Eph.  iii.  10,  our  translation  ex- 
presses the  only  true  meaning,  when  it  says,  "  To  the  in- 
tent now,  that  unto  the  principalities  and  powers  in 
heavenly  places,  might  be  known  by  the  church,  the  mani- 
fold wisdom  of  God." 

Are  our  Baptist  brethren  in  sober  earnest,  fighting 
against  the  very  idea  involved  in  the  words  "  Church," 
"  The  Church  of  God,"  as  an  unscriptural  idea,  not  in- 
tended or  expressed  by  any  word  or  words  in  Holy  Writ  1 
Is  it  then  true,  that  there  is  no  such  idea  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament as  that  involved  in  the  word  church, — an  idea 
which  is  truly  expressed  by  no  other  word  than  the  word 
church;  or  are  our  brethren  covering  up  and  concealing 
that  idea,  by  paring  the  meaning  of  the  word  ekklesia  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  down  to  the  nude  idea  of  a  simple 
assembly  or  town  meeting  1 

Is  it  true  that  Christ  has  no  such  thing  as  that  which  we 
have  been  accustomed  to  understand  by  the  word  church  / 
or  has  the  word  ekklesia  changed  its  meaning  upon  being 
adopted  into  the  New  Testament  Greek  1  What  do  our 
brethren  mean  I  Is  it  "  slaughter"  "  pillage,"  "  cheat," 
to  talk  about  such  a  thing  as  a  Baptist  "  Church  V  Why, 
I  find  in  the  constitution  of  the  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society,  that  the  "  Board  of  Managers"  shall  "  con- 
sist of  thirty-six  brethren  in  good  standing  in  Baptisi 


14  A   REFUTATION   OF 

CHURCHES  !"  And  even  Mr.  Woolsey's  book  is  published 
by  special  request  of  the  "  Norwalk  Baptist  CHURCH." 
Mr.  Woolsey  talks  about  "the  Church"  being  "  torn  asun- 
der by  infant  baptism."  Does  he  simply  mean  that  the 
Assembly  is  torn  asunder]  What  assembly!  Indeed, 
what  do  our  brethren  mean  ?  Are  they  seeking  "  to  unite 
church  and  state  1  Are  they  laying  plans  for  "  slaughter" 
and  "  pillage"  and  "  cheats,"  by  so  constant  a  use  of  this 
"wicked"  word,  church; — or  is  all  this  ado  about  the 
word,  and  their  proscription  of  it,  in  their  glossary,  mere 
talk  and  idle  pretence  : — a  mere  diversion,  whose  true  ob- 
ject is  to  find  some  company  for  that  poor  banished  word, 
baptize  ;  lest  it  should  stand  too  naked  in  the  glossary,  and 
indicate  their  editions  of  the  New  Testament  to  be  a  mere 
Sectarian  Baptist  book  1  What  is  the  true  reason  why 
our  brethren  insist  upon  making  the  Bible  itself  proscribe 
and  banish  that  hapless  word,  Church,  while  they  still 
continue  to  use  it  in  relation  to  a  thing  which,  if  it  has  no 
scriptural  foundation,  is  an  arrant  fraud  upon  the  Christian 
world  1 

The  change  of  meaning  in  many  words  of  the  Greek 
language,  upon  adapting  it  to  the  ideas  and  observances  of 
a  revealed  religion,  was  a  matter  of  necessity :  and  that 
aside  from  the  natural  influence  of  the  Hebraic  idiom. 
Carry  the  Gospel  into  China  or  Hindoostan  or  among  the 
tribes  of  our  American  Indians  ,  it  brings  them  a  multitude 
of  ideas  which  are  peculiar  to  revealed  religion.  To  ex- 
press these  ideas,  the  old  words  of  their  language  must  receive 
a  new  meaning;  or  they  must  coin  new  words ;  or  they 
must  adopt  words  from  the  language  of  those  who  brought 
them  the  new  religion,  or  from  some  other  quarter.* 

*  Said  DAVID  BRAINERD,  "There  are  no  words  in  the  Indian 
language  to  answer  to  our  English  words,  Lord,  Savior,  salvation, 
sinner,  justice,  condemnation,  faith,  adoption,  glory,  with  scoresof 
like  importance." 


BAPTIST   ERRORS. 


15 


If,  instead  of  a  new  religion,  a  new  language  is  car- 
ried among  a  people  professing  the  true  religion,  the  words 
of  that  new  language  receive  a  new  meaning,  the  moment 
they  are  applied  to  the  religious  ideas  and  observances  to 
which  the  language  was  before  a  stranger.  Carry  any 
heathen  language  into  a  Gospel  land,  or  into  a  land  of 
Hebrew  rites,  and  of  Hebrew  ideas  concerning  the  true 
God  and  revealed  religion ;  and  it  is  impossible  that  the 
meaning  of  such  words  as  are  applied  to  these  new  ideas 
should  not  be  even  more  changed,  than  is  the  idiom  of 
the  language  in  the  construction  of  phrases.  Such  is  the 
fact  with  regard  to  the  New  Testament  Greek  as  compar- 
ed with  the  classic,  or  even  with  the  common  dialect 
which  prevailed  after  the  conquests  of  Alexander. 

Mr.  Woolsey  thinks  he  brings  this  subject  "  within  the 
comprehension  of  every  child,"  by  referring  to  the 
"  Irish-English"  of  an  "  Irishman,  after  having  become 
acquainted  with  our  language  and  able  to  speak  it  with 
fluency,  yet  you  can  detect  them  using  phrases  and  words 
peculiar  to  their  own  vernacular  tongue,  and  dissimilar  to 
ours."  This  by  no  means  meets  the  case,  but  is  calculated 
entirely  to  mislead.  The  Irishman  has  religious  ideas,  to  a 
great  extent,  in  common  with  us.  An  African  or  an  In- 
dian might  learn  our  language,  and  yet  speak  it  in  a  man- 
ner peculiar  to  themselves.  But  what  would  be  the  effect 
upon  their  own  language,  when  the  Christian  religion  has 
been  once  completely  established  among  them  ]  New 
ideas  fill  the  mind  of  the  benighted  pagan  ;  and  lift  up  his 
thoughts  to  angels — to  heaven — to  God.  He  thinks  of  re- 
demption, of  faith,  of  holiness.  His  thoughts,  his  hopes, 
his  intellect,  his  heart, — all  are  wonderfully  transformed. 
"  Old  things  pass  away  :  all  things  become  new."  Are 
his  lips  sealed  1  Is  he  dumb  1  Are  African  converts  never 
to  speak  to  each  other  of  the  kingdom  of  God  1  The 


16  A   REFUTATION  OF 

words  of  their  language  remaining  the  same,  and  applied 
to  these  new  and  wonderful  ideas,  is  their  meaning  the 
same  1  Is  the  whole  change  expressed  by  referring  to 
the  brogue  of  an  Irishman  whose  mother  tongue  was 
Irish-English,  and  whose  ideas  have  never  changed  from 
pagan  to  Christian  1 

That  such  was  the  effect  of  adapting  the  pagan  Greek 
language  to  the  Christian  religion,  any  one  may  see,  who 
will  sit  down  patiently  and  turn  over  the  leaves  of  a  Lexi- 
con of  the  New  Testament,  which  adequately  discrimi- 
nates and  marks  the  transition. 

Indeed,  why  do  I  put  myself  to  the  trouble  of  this 
protracted  argument  1  Mr.  Woolsey  has  himself  admitted 
all  that  any  Pedobaptist  has  ever  asserted  or  desired  to 
prove  on  this  subject.  When  he  says,  (p.  123,)  "  But 
when  such  are  informed,  that  many  PASSAGES  are  written 
in  the  most  pure  Greek,  and  that  the  GREATER  PORTION  of 
the  words  are  employed  precisely  in  the  sense  as  when 
found  in  classic  authors  5" — he  grants,  that  some  passages 
are  written  not  in  the  pure  Greek  construction  ;  and  that 
some  portion  of  the  words  is  not  used  *'  in  the  sense  as 
when  found  in  the  classic  Greek  authors."  This  is  all 
that  has  been  claimed  ;  this  is  all  I  want. 

THE  INTENT  AND  BEARING  OF  THIS   DISCUSSION    CONCERNING 
THE    CLASSIC   USE,  AND  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT   USE. 

The  sole  intent  of  all  this  discussion  about  the  classic 
use,  and  the  New  Testament  use,  is  to  show  that  the  word 
Baptize  in  the  New  Testament  may  have  left  its  primary 
classic  signification,  and  have  received  a  GENERIC,  SACRED 
use,  equivalent  to  WASHING  or  PURIFYING,  without  the  least 
reference  to  the  mode  in  which  that  "  washing  of  water" 
is  performed.  Whether  this  be  the  fact  or  not,  is  to  be 
learned  not  from  the  Greek  classics,  but  from  the  New 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  17 

Testament  itself.  As  to  this  matter  of  fact,  Mark  and 
Luke  and  Paul  are  better  witnesses  concerning  what  they 
themselves  understood  by  the  word  baptize,  than  Xeno- 
phon,  Aristotle,  or  than  even  that  Hebrew  of  Hebrews, 
the  Jewish  Josephus,  when  he  is  using  the  word  in  the 
sense  of  the  Greek  classics,  with  no  reference  to  its  sacred 
use  as  applied  to  a  religious  ordinance. 

Will  any  Baptist  make  an  issue  on  this  point;  and 
maintain  that  Apostles  and  Evangelists  are  not  to  be  heard 
in  evidence  1  Will  any  Baptist  maintain  that  Evangelists 
and  Apostles  may  not  explain  their  own  meaning  in  just 
the  same  way  that  heathen  Greeks  may  explain  theirs  1 
Will  any  Baptist  maintain,  that  where  the  testimony  of 
the  New  Testament  writers  differs  from  that  of  the  hea- 
then Greeks,  the  New  Testament  witness  is  not  to  be 
heard  before  any  heathen,  and  before  all  the  the  heathen 
classics  together'?  In  fine, — the  question  here  is, — 
Is  the  Holy  Ghost  a  competent  and  credible  witness  as  to 
the  sense  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  uses  the  word  baptize  1 
If  our  Baptist  brethren  raise  no  issue  on  this  question,  then, 
I  think,  I  can  show  beyond  reasonable  doubt,  that 

"  God  is  his  own  interpreter, 
And  he  has  made  it  plain," 

that  baptism  is  not  equivalent  to  immersion,  in  the  word  of 
God. 

THE    QUESTION   BROUGHT   TO   AN   ISSUE. 

In  Mark  i.  9,  it  is  written,  "  that  Jesus  came  from  Naz- 
areth of  Galilee,  and  WAS  BAPTIZED  of  John  in  Jordan." 
In  the  original  Greek  the  word  for  "was  baptized"  is 
ipmtrioVn  (ebaptisthe),—  [\et  the  form  of  the  word  be  par- 
ticularly noticed.]  Mr.  Woolsey  insists,  p.  140,  142, 
that  we  shall  translate  this  "  was  IMMERSED  of  John  in 
2 


18  A   REFUTATION    OF 

Jordan."  He  says,  p.  143,  "  He  who  can  resist  the  force 
of  these  scriptures,  as  teaching  the  immersion  of  Jesus  in 
Jordan,  must  be  under  the  controlling  power  of  igno- 
rance, of  pride,  or  of  prejudice,  or  of  some  other  influ- 
ence extraneous  to  the  spirit  of  Christianity."  It  is  not 
with  the  charity  of  this  remark,  nor  with  the  argument 
contained  in  it,  that  I  have  here  to  do ;  but  simply  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  reader  to  Mr.  Woolsey's  firm  assur- 
ance, that  the  word  spaim^  (ebaptisthe,  a  form  of  the 
v  verb  baptizo,)  can  and  must  be  translated  "  was  IMMERSED." 
He  says,  p.  69,  "  Baptize  can  be  literally  and  EXPLICITLY 
translated  into  any  language,  which  has  the  words  im- 
merse, dip,  or  plunge,  or  words  equivalent  to  these." 
"  Yea  more,"  says  he,  p.  70,  "  I  have  diligently  examined 
baptize,  as  to  its  being  capable  of  a  translation ;  I  have 
weighed  the  arguments  which  some  few  have  urged 
against  its  translation  ;  and  it  is  my  most  deliberate  con- 
clusion, that  no  word  in  the  Greek  Testament  can  be 
more  easily  expressed  in  English."  (He  means, — ex- 
pressed by  the  English  word  immerse.)  He  says,  p.  131, 
"  In  respect  to  the  word  baptize,  it  always  and  invariably 
is  used  in  the  sense  to  immerse,  whether  in  classic  or 
sacred  Greek."  In  common  with  his  Baptist  brethren, 
he  breaks  forth  with  the  utmost  vehemence  against  every 
thing  short  of  a  translation, — a  literal,  EXPLICIT,  and 
u  FAITHFUL  translation  ;"  no  gloss, — no  commentary, — 
no  transferring ,  but  a  true  and  explicit  TRANSLATION  of 
the  Greek  word  Baptizo  by  the  English  word  immerse. 
"  We  maintain,"  says  he,  p.  77,  "  that  a  Bible  with  the 
Greek  words  Baptizo,  Baptisma,  and  their  cognates 
untranslated,"  *  *  *  "  is  a  Bible  mutilated  and  dis- 
guised" 

Be  it  so.     Let  the  word  baptizo  be  translated  by  the 
word  immerse  :  no  glossing — no  commenting — no  "  cor- 


BAPTIST   ERRORS. 


19 


reefing  and  altering  the  diction  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Let  Mr.  Woolsey  have  all  this  in  his  own  way,  and  the 
Bible  speaks  what,—  Mr.  Woolsey  himself  being  judge,— 
is  falsehood. 

In  Mark  i.  9,  we  have  the  word  tfanrnoBri  (ebaptisthe), 
"  was  baptized."  (Let  the  person  who  cannot  read 
Greek,  nevertheless  carefully  observe  the  form  of  the  let- 
ters.) Mr.  Woolsey  insists  that  it  shall  be  translated 
M  was  immersed"  v> 

Turn  now  to  Luke  ii.  38,  where  we  have  the  same 
word  £/?o7rrt<r0»7  (ebaptisthe)  letter  for  letter,  in  all  respects 
precisely  the  same.  "  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he 
marvelled  that  he  had  not  first  WASHED  before  dinner  :" 
in  the  original,  £/Wi<r0/7  (ebaptisthe),—  "  that  he  HAD  not 
first  BEEN  BAPTIZED  before  dinner."  Will  Mr.  Woolsey 
translate  it,  "  the  Pharisee  marvelled"  that  Jesus  had  not 
first  BEEN  IMMERSED  before  dinner]  In  Mark  i.  9,  he 
thinks  it  awful  presumption,  —  mutilating  and  disguising 
the  Bible  —  "  correcting  and  altering  the  diction  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"—  to  translate  e/SavTiffOn  (ebaptisthe)  by  any 
thing  else  .than  "  was  IMMERSED."  Here,  in  Luke  ii.  38, 
is  precisely  the  same  word,  letter  for  letter,  tQairnaBn  (ebap- 
tisthe). Will  Mr.  Woolsey  translate  it  so  here  1  I  re- 
peat it  :  will  Mr.  Woolsey  say,  "  The  Pharisee  marvelled 
that  Jesus  had  not  first  BEEN  IMMERSED  before  dinner!" 
No  ;  he  holds  that  as  untrue.  He  does  not  believe  that 
it  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  immerse  themselves 
before  eating,  or  when  they  came  from  the  market  ;  or 
that  it  could  have  been  a  matter  of  wonder  that  Jesus  or 
his  disciples  should  once  fail  to  immerse  themselves,  be- 
fore eating,  when  they  had  been  in  a  crowd,  or  in  the 
market.  He  dares  not  make  a  true  translation  here  on 
his  principles,  and  explicitly  and  truly  substitute  the 
word  immerse  for  the  word  baptize.  He  well  knows 


20  A   REFUTATION   OF 

that  to  do  this  would  make  the  Bible  speak  what  he  be- 
lieves to  be  a  falsehood.  Here,  according  to  him,  ^aimaBn 
(ebaptisthe)  does  not  mean  what  he  insists  the  self  same 
word  shall  mean  in  Mark  i.  9.  Here,  according  to  him, 
ebaptisthe  does  not  mean  "was  immersed,"  or  "had  been 
immersed :"  and  so  he  does  not  give,  and  he  dares  not 
give,  a  simple  and  faithful  translation  of  the  passage.  He 
wraps  it  up  :  he  gives  a  gloss  :  he  substitutes  a  comment 
of  his  own  instead  of  the  word  of  God.  He  says,  p.  1597 
"  From  what  has  been  remarked,  you  will  have  a  more 
distinct  understanding  of  another  passage  recorded  by 
Luke,  xi.  38,  '  The  Savior,  being  invited  to  dine  with  a 
Pharisee,  took  his  seat  without  (t^aamffBn}  HAVING  PLUNGED 
HIS  HANDS  INTO  WATER.'  "  The  words  "  hands"  and  "  into 
water"  are  not  in  the  original  passage,  or  near  it.  Mr. 
Woolsey  "  corrects  and  alters  the  diction  of  the  Holy 
Ghost""  by  inserting  these  words  ;  and  does  it  for  the  pur- 
pose  (unconsciously,  perhaps,)  of  "  covering  up  and  con- 
cealing from  plain  English  readers"  the  fact,  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  here  speaks  plainly,  fully,  and  undisguisedly,  of  a 
person's  BEING  BAPTIZED,  when,  (as  even  Mr.  Woolsey 
maintains,)  the  person  was  NOT  IMMERSED.  The  Scrip- 
ture here  predicates  the  baptism  of  the  person.  It  says 
not  a  word  about  the  hands.  It  does  not  affirm  the  bap- 
tism of  the  hands,  or  in  the  slightest  manner  allude  to 
them  :  it  affirms  the  baptism  of  the  person. 

Mr.  Woolsey  knows, — every  scholar  knows, — that  if  to 
baptize  means  nothing  but  to  immerse,  then  it  is  IMPOSSI- 
BLE to  give  a  grammatical  and  faithful  translation  of  this 
passage,  without  making  the  Pharisee  wonder  that  Jesus 
HIMSELF,  (not  simply  his  hands,)  had  not  been  first  im- 
mersed before  dinner.  There  is  no  escaping  from  this, 
without  giving  an  unfaithful  translation  ;  altering  the  dic- 
tion of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  in  effect  adding  to  the 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  21 

word  of  God.  Mr.  Carson,  the  great  oracle  of  the  Bap- 
tists, maintains  this.  Mr.  Judd,  another  learned  Baptist,  in 
his  review  of  Professor  Stuart,  takes  this  ground.  But 
Mr.  Woolsey  does  not  believe  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the 
Jews  to  immerse  themselves  before  dinner.  He  says,  p.  158, 
"  There  is  not  sufficient  ground  for  believing  that  the 
Jews  immersed  their  whole  body  when  returning  from 
the  market"  For  the  purpose  of  performing  the  purifica- 
tion customary  upon  coming  from  the  market,  he  says 
"  Every  family  among  the  Jews  provided  themselves  with 
water-pots,  as  we  read  in  John  i.  6,"  and  he  quotes  Dr. 
Lightfoot  to  show  that  these  water-pots  "  contained  be- 
tween nine  and  thirteen  gallons  each,"  p.  156, — and  in 
these  the  baptizing,  whatever  it  was,  he  maintains,  was 
performed.  But  to  immerse  the  whole  body  in  such  wa- 
ter-pots is  ckarly  out  of  the  question.  It  was  impossible. 
in  Mr.  Woolsey's  view,  then,  to  make  the  Bible  say  that 
the  "  Pharisee  wondered  that  Jesus  had  not  been  immers- 
ed before  dinner,  is  to  make  the  Bible  speak  falsehood. 
When  he  comes  to  this  passage,  therefore,  as  I  have  said, 
he  gives  no  translation :  he  gives  a  gloss :  he  makes  a 
commentary :  he  says  what  the  Holy  Ghost  did  not  say, 
and  substitutes  his  own  invention  for  the  Word  of  God. 
If  Mr.  Woolsey  deems  this  representation  of  the  matter 
incorrect ;  if  it  is  in  his  power  to  relieve  himself  of  this 
difficulty,  let  him  answer.  Say,  Mr.  Woolsey,  what,  on 
your  principle,  is  the  proper,  grammatical,  faithful  TRANS- 
LATION of  the  word  ipairrtaOr]  1  Is  it  not  "  He  was,  (or  had 
been)  immersed  ?"  Do  not  evade  the  question  by  mak- 
ing a  gloss  : — let  us  have  not  a  commentary ;  but  a  sim- 
ple, honest,  and  faithful  TRANSLATION  of  the  WORD  tfanTiaQu 
(ebaptisthe)  in  Luke  ii.  38.  Do  you  not  know,  that,  on 
your  principles,  it  must  be  translated  "had  been  immers- 
ed !"  And  do  you  not  believe  j — have  you  not  said,  what 
2* 


22  A   REFUTATION   OB4 

is  equivalent  to  the  direct  assertion ; — that  to  give  this 
plain,  simple,  grammatical  translation  of  the  passage,  and 
send  it  forth  to  the  world  without  note  or  comment  would 
make  the  Bible  speak  falsehood  1 

And  what  sort  of  interpretation  is  that,  which,  if  you 
faithfully  translate  the  Bible  according  to  it,  will  make  the 
Bible  speak  an  acknowledged  falsehood  1  I  venture  to  pre- 
dict that  we  shall  never  have  a  version  of  the  Bible  in 
English,  in  which  baptize  shall  in  all  cases  be  faithfully 
translated  by  the  word  immerse  :  and  which  shall  be  sent 
out  to  the  world  without  gloss,  note,  or  comment.  At  all 
events,  if  such  a  version  is  ever  issued,  Mr.  Woolsey  is 
bound  to  reject  it  and  condemn  it. 

On  the  supposition  that  Mr.  Woolsey's  comment  is  cor- 
rect ;  that  the  matter  of  wonder  was  that  Jesus  had  not 
first  "  plunged  his  hands  into  water :"  then  it  is  absolute* 
ly  certain,  that  a  person  is  completely  and  fully  baptized 
with  no  immersion  of  his  body,  but  by  simply  plunging 
his  hands  into  water.  The  Holy  Ghost  here  affirms  the 
baptism  of  the  person  as  fully— as  unequivocally — as  ab- 
solutely— as  he  does  when  he  says  in  Mark  i.  9,  that  Jesus 
was  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan.  Nay,  the  original  Scrip- 
ture uses  the  self  same  word  without  the  alteration  of  a 
letter ;  without  a  syllable  of  explanation  ;  with  no  circum- 
stance to  modify  or  diminish  the  full  meaning  of  the  word 
baptize.  And  yet  this  baptism,  Mr.  Woolsey  maintains 
truly — was  (no  more  than)  a  dipping  of  the  hands.  By 
what  rule  can  he  certainly  know,  from  the  meaning  of 
Baptize  alone,  that  the  very  same  word,  when  used  to  de- 
clare the  baptism  of  Jesus  by  John,  or  of  Paul  by  Annani- 
as,  or  of  the  eunuch  by  Philip,  was  an  application  of  water 
more  extensive  or  thorough  than  a  dipping  of  the  hands  1 
With  this  explicit  and  unequivocal  testimony  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  to  the  common  meaning  of  baptize,  how  can 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  23 

our  Baptist  brethren  pretend  that  when  our  Savior  com- 
mands us  to  be  baptized  he  commands  us  to  be  immersed ; 
without  altering  the  command  of  Christ,  and  adding  to  the 
word  of  God  ] 

THE    EVIDENCE    CONCLUSIVE. 

If  this  evidence  stood  entirely  alone,  even  then  it  would 
be  absolutely  conclusive.  Ten  thousand  times  ten  thou- 
sand heathen  Greeks  can  never  set  aside  this  sacred  mean- 
ing of  the  word  Baptize,  even  though  they  should  be  unani- 
mous in  their  testimony,  that  with  them  the  word  meant 
only  to  immerse.  If  Mr.  Woolsey  is  correct  as  to  what 
was  done  by  the  Jews  before  eating  when  they  came 
from  the  market,  then  it  is  undeniable  that  the  witness  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  here  implies  that  immersion  was  not,  and 
of  course  cannot  now  be,  essential  to  baptism.  Mr. 
Woolsey  says  that  what  was  done,  was  not  an  immersion 
of  the  body,  but  a  dipping  of  the  hands ;  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  unequivocally,  nakedly,  and  simply  calls  what  was 
so  done,  a  Baptizing,  Can  any  mathematical  demon- 
stration, then,  be  more  plain  than  this  proof  of  the  fact : 
that  in  the  word  of  God  an  immersion  is  not  essential  to  a 
baptism  1 

THE    CONCLUSION   FURTHER    CORROBORATED. 

But  if  you  search  through  the  word  of  God,  you  will 
find  everything  answerable  to  this  conclusion.  Thus,  in 
Mark  vii.  3,  4,  it  is  said,  "  And  when  they  come  from  the 
market,  except  they  wash,  they  eat  not."  The  word 
wash  is  in  the  original  ffavriffuvrat  (Baptisontai)  BAPTIZE 
THEMSELVES.  The  verb  is  in  the  Middle  Voice  (neither 
active  nor  passive,)  and  being  used  without  a  noun  denot- 
ing the  object  of  the  action,  it  indicates  that  the  agents 
perform  the  action  for,  or  upon,  themselves.  Every 
Greek  scholar  knows  that  if  the  word  baptize,  means  im- 


^ 


*4  A    REFUTATION   OF 

merse,  the  only  proper  translation  of  the  word  as  here 
used,  is,  "Except  they  immerse  themselves"  People 
may  explain  it,  as  Mr.  Woolsey  does,  by  saying  that  the 
meaning  is,  except  they  dip  their  hands ;  but  that  is  mere 
commentary ;  it  is  "  altering  the  diction  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  it  is  not  "faithfully  translating."  The  Holy 
Ghost  affirms  the  baptism  of  the  persons,  not  of  the  hands' 
If  it  be  correct  commentary,  to  say  that  it  means,  except 
they  wash,  or  purify,  or  immerse  their  hands  ;  then  the 
Holy  Ghost  here  witnesseth,  that  a  washing,  purifying, 
or  immersion  of  the  hands,  is,  to  the  full  meaning  of  bap- 
tize, a  baptism  of  the  person.  The  baptism  is  predicated 
of  the  person  ;  and  it  is  "  covering  up  and  concealing  from 
a  mere  English  reader,"  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
concerning  the  proper  import  of  the  word  baptize,  to  put 
the  word  "hands"  into  the  text  in  this  passage.  No  gram- 
matical construction,  no  pure  and  faithful  translation,  al- 
lows the  baptism  here  to  be  predicated  of  the  hands. 

JUDD    ON    MARK,  VII.  4. 

Mr.  Judd  in  his  learned  reply  to  Stuart,  p.  25,  trans- 
lates the  passage,  "  And  when  they  come  from  the  market, 
except  they  pwTiauvrai,  BAPTIZE  THEMSELVES."  In  the 
same  manner  he  makes  the  Pharisee  in  Luke  xi.  38,  won- 
der that  Jesus  had  not  been  baptized  before  dinner.  As 
Mr.  Judd  maintains  that  baptize  must  and  shall  mean  im- 
merse, he  maintains  that  baptize  not  only  may  have  its 
usual  meaning  here,  but  that  "  that  meaning  is  absolutely 
required  by  the  scope  and  harmony  of  the  passage  :"  i.  e., 
he  will  make  the  Scripture  here  testify  that  the  Pharisees 
and  all  the  Jews  immersed  their  whole  bodies  before  eat- 
ing, as  often  as  they  came  from  the  market.  "  Surely," 
says  he,  p.  37,  "the  Jews  could  have  immersed  them- 
selves after  coming  from  the  market."  Surely  they  could, 


BAPTIST   ERRORS,  25 

if  they  never  went  from  the  market,  and  took  their  meals 
where  they  could  not.  But  Mr.  Judd  mistakes  the  ques- 
tion. The  inquiry  should  be,  not  whether  they  surely 
could  immerse  themselves,  but  whether  they  surely  did. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  show  that  the  act  of  immersion  was 
physically  impossible  :  the  proper  inquiry  is,  not  whether 
it  was  impossible  to  be  done,  but  whether  it  can  possibly 
be  true  that  it  was  actually  done.  Surely  the  Jews  could 
have  eaten  Stephen  like  cannibals  after  they  had  stoned 
him  j  for  the  thing  was  not  impossible  to  be  done :  but 
it  is  impossible  that  it  should  be  true  that  it  was  done. 
Of  such  a  custom  of  immersing  the  whole  body  as  often 
as  they  came  from  the  market,  there  is  not  a  scrap  of  evi- 
dence in  the  wide  world,  except  in  this  assumed  meaning 
of  the  word  baptize.  The  manners  and  customs  of  the 
Jews  have  been  well  known  from  that  day  to  this ;  and 
no  such  custom  was  ever  known  or  heard  of,  till  invent- 
ed as  a  historical  fact  necessary  to  help  the  Baptists  out 
of  this  difficulty.  We  may  say  with  Mr.  Woolsey,  p.  24- 
(and  Mr.  Woolsey,  at  least,  will  join  with  us  in  making 
this  application  of  his  language ,)  "such  a  scheme  to  sup- 
port" immersion  "for  baptism  is  of  very  recent  invention, 
and  can  be  but  of  short  duration."  Mr.  Woolsey  rejects 
this  historical  "  invention,"  and  says,  p.  158,  "  There  is 
not  sufficient  ground  for  believing  that  the  Jews  immers- 
ed their  whole  body  when  returning  from  the  market" 

Here  the  Holy  Ghost  saith,  "  that  the  Pharisees  and  all 
the  Jews,  when  they  come  from  the  market,  except  they 
BAPTIZE  THEMSELVES,  eat  not."  Mr.  Woolsey  thereupon 
says,  "  There  is  not  sufficient  ground  for  believing  that 
they  immersed  their  whole  body."  The  conclusion 
should  be,  that  Mr.  Woolsey  must  either  alter  the  word 
of  God,  or  give  up  immersion  as  essential  to  baptism  ;  or 
impeach  the  veracity  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  a  hard 


26  A   REFUTATION   OF 

alternative,  but  Mr.  Woolsey,  by  denying  the  custom  of 
immersion  upon  coming  from  the  market,  must  of  neces- 
sity infix  himself  upon  one  of  the  forks  of  this  trident. 

CARSON  ON  MARK,  VII,  4u 

So  Carson  thinks,  he  sees  the  entire  want  of  historical 
evidence  to  support  the  notion  that  the  Jews  immersed 
their  whole  bodies  as  often  as  they  came  from  the  market. 
He  sees  the  difficulty  in  supposing  that  a  custom  which  no 
body  ever  heard  of,  was  so  common  among  the  Jews,  as 
to  be  a  matter  of  wonder  and  remark  that  Jesus  or  his  dis- 
ciples should  once  omit  it  before  eating.  He  sees  the 
difficulties  and  feels  them;  but  he  has  determined  that 
baptize  shall  mean  immerse;  and  the  grammatical  con- 
struction absolutely  forbids  him  to  predicate  the  baptism 
of  the  hands,  or  of  any  thing  else  than  the  whole  person. 
Before  him  is  danger,  but  behind  him  is  perdition.  He 
screws  himself  up  to  the  desperate  venture.  He  knows  ; 
— as  a  scholar ; — as  an  honest  man, — he  knows, — that 
there  is  no  giving  a  fair  grammatical  translation  of  these 
passages,  without  either  giving  up  immersion  for  baptism ; 
or  impeaching  the  veracity  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  or  main- 
taining the  hard  alternative  of  affirming,  what  is  still 
harder  to  be  believed,  that  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews 
never  used  to  eat  when  they  came  from  the  market,  ex- 
cept they  had  immersed  their  whole  bodies.  Give  up  im- 
mersion, he  will  not.  Reject  the  testimony  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  he  dares  not.  He,  therefore,  screws  himself  up  for 
the  alternative.  While  he  stands  poising  upon  the  brink 
of  the  precipice,  the  renowned  George  Campbell  stretches 
out  the  hand  for  his  relief.  Affirm,  says  Campbell,  "  that 
the  immersion  is  predicated  of  the  hands  ;" — and  offers  his 
mighty  shield  and  buckler,  and  his  mightier  name,  to  pro- 
tect and  countenance  his  brother  in  such  an  escape  fro;n 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  27 

the  dilemma.  But,  Carson  is  too  well  informed,  and  too 
honest,  to  resort  to  what  he  believes  a  mere  subterfuge. 
He  rejects  the  proffered  aid.  Down  the  precipice  he  leaps  ; 
— and,  according  to  Mr.  Woolsey,  carries  the  Baptist 
cause, — if  it  must  go  with  him, — to  perdition :  for  in  his 
opinion,  there  was  no  such  custom  as  that  which  Carson 
is  obliged  to  maintain ;  and  the  proof  of  that  custom  tail- 
ing, Carson's  argument  sinks  into  a  miserable  grave » 

MR.  WOOLSEY'S  CHOICE  OF  ALTERNATIVES. 

But  what  is  the  alternative,  which  Mr.  Woolsey  is  ob- 
liged to  adopt  1  The  one  from  which  Carson,  "  inferior 
in  learning  and  research  to  none  of  the  Baptists,"  shrunk 
back  with  horror  ;  rejected  as  utterly  untenable  j  and  de- 
nounced as  "  nothing  but  an  ingenious  device,  without  any 
authority  from  the  genius  and  practice  of  the  language." 
Mr.  Woolsey  rests  on  ground  at  which  Carson  himself 
would  wield  a  thunderbolt ;  to  which  Judd  scorns  to  des- 
cend ;  and  on  which,  no  one,  who  maintains  it,  is  able  to 
give  a  faithful  translation  of  the  passages  in  Mark  vii.  4, 
and  Luke  xi.  38,  without  making  the  Bible  speak,  what 
those  who  take  the  ground  admit  to  be,  falsehood. 

THE  BAPTISTS  AT  WAR  WITH  EACH  OTHER. 

Here  we  have  Carson  and  Judd  pitted  against  Camp- 
bell and  Woolsey  ;  the  house  divided  against  itself  on  a 
point  which  is  decisive  of  the  whole  question.  Carson 
and  Judd  give  up  the  notion  of  limiting  the  baptism  to  the 
hands :  Campbell  and  Woolsey  give  up  the  custom  of  an 
immersion  of  the  body  as  often  as  the  Jews  come  from  the 
market.  The  work  of  destroying  their  mutual  errors  is 
done  to  our  hands  ;  and  the  truth  comes  out  clear,  that  the 
Scriptures  do  not  consider  immersion  as  at  all  necessary  to 
baptism  5  for  to  make  it  so,  compels  us  either  to  alter  the 


28  A    REFUTATION   OF 

plain  diction  of  the  Scriptures,  or  to  make  them  speak  an 
admitted  falsehood. 

How  comes  it  to  pass  that  these  mighty  champions  so 
come  into  conflict  with  each  other  1  Hear  Mr.  Woolsey, 
(p.  7.)  "  All  error,  when  seeking  to  wear  the  aspect  of 
truth,  comes  in  contact  with  truth  itself.  Truth  and  error 
can  never  be  made  to  harmonize  ;  the  former  will  con- 
tinually show  a  just  repugnance  to  the  latter,  and  the  lat- 
ter will  as  continually  cross  the  path  of  the  former."  Bap- 
tists,— "  Are  not  united  among  themselves  as  to  what  me- 
thods and  arguments  they  shall  adopt  to  sustain  their  un- 
happy position.*  What  is  cherished  by  one,  is  discarded 


*  Oar  Baptist  brethren  conflict  with  each  other  on  other  impor- 
tant p  >ints.  Mr.  Woolsey  insists  that  the  famous  passage  "  Bu- 
ried with  him  by  baptism  into  death,"  so  plainly  refers  to  the  mode 
of  baptism,  that  every  one  must  see  it ;  and  declares  that  "  If  bap- 
tism  here  does  not  mean  a  "literal"  burial  and  resurrection,  then 
is  Christ  not  risen  ;"  and  preaching  and  faith  are  Ci  vain,"  p.  210. 
But  the  famous  Baptist  historian  Robinson,  and  Dr.  Judson,  so  long 
a  missionary  in  the  East  «*  both  admit  that  this  passage  is  misap- 
plied, when  used  as  evidence  of  the  mode  of  baptism."  [Hamilton 
p.  95.] 

So  again,  Mr.  Woolsey  maintains  that  the  disciples  spoken  of  in 
Acts  xix.,  were  not  re-baptized  ;  imputes  to  us  the  intention  of 
excluding  "  the  holy  John,"  with  all  the  repenting  and  believing 
converts  that  followed  his  instruction,  from  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation ;  and  of  not  "  allowing"  even  Christ,  "  the  captain  of  salva- 
tion," and  the  great  head  of  the  church,  to  have  been  a  member  of 
the  same  ;  declares  that  it  required  more  than  a  simple  pious  Chris- 
tian to  have  invented  such  a  scheme,  savoring  more  of  DARING  DESIGN, 
than  of  ardent  love  and  "  attachment  to  the  Divine  Redeemer." 
And  yet  Professor  Riple.y  of  the  Baptist  Theological  Institute,  at 
Newton,  Mass,  says,  '*  It  never  seemed  to  me  right  to  represent 
this  verse  as  the  language  of  Paul,  informing  these  men  what  was 
usually  done  in  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist.  A  reader  not  think, 
ing  of  the  controversy  respecting  the  verse,  could  hardly  fail  to 


BAPTIST    ERRORS.  29 

by  another.  What  one  advances  in  support  of  their  pe- 
culiar views,  is  utterly  rejected  by  van other  as  insufficient 
and  untenable.  Some  feel  it  the  part  of  candor  to  con- 
cede what  others  have  not  the  ingenuousness  to  acknow- 
ledge. And  thus,  in  several  ways,  they  manifestly  show 
that  their  rock  is  not  as  our  rock,  they  themselves  being 
judges." 

DR.  GEORGE  CAMPBELL  ON  MARK,  VII.  4,  AND  LUKE  XI.  38. 

The  learned  George  Campbell,  whom  our  Baptist  breth- 
ren are  so  fond  of  quoting  on  these  passages  in  Mark  vii. 
4-,  and  Luke  xi.  38,  gets  along  with  them  no  better  than 
Mr.  Woolsey. 

He  is  about  the  work  of  translating  the  New-Testa- 
ment ;  and  he  is  determined  beforehand  that  baptize  must 
mean  exclusively  immerse. 

Mark  says,  that  the  "  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,  when 
they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  baptize  them- 
selves,  eat  not."  Mr.  Campbell  does  no  believe,  that  they 
immersed  themselves  as  often  as  they  came  from  the  mar- 
ket. What  does  he  do  \  Does  he  give  a  grammatical  and 
faithful  translation  of  the  word  baptize  1  He  dares  not. 
He  believes  that  such  a  translation,  giving  to  baptize  the 
sense  of  immerse,  will  make  the  Bible  speak  falsehood.  He 
gives  no  translation :  he  makes  a  gloss :  he  gives  a  com- 
mentary, and  "  corrects  and  alters  the  diction"  of  the 
Scriptures  by  substituting  his  comment  in  the  place  of  the 
words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth.  And  this  is  his 


understand  it,  as  the  language  of  Luke  the  historian,  relating  that, 
after  Paul  had  conversed  with  these  men,  they  were  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus ;  and  that  he  then  laid  his  handa  on 
them,  with  which  action  was  connected  the  imparting  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  [Examination  of  Stuart,  p.  144.] 

a 


30  A   REFUTATION   OF 

comment — for  no  scholar,  I  trust,  will  ever  venture  to 
call  it  translation.  "  For  the  Pharisees,  and  indeed  all 
the  Jews  who  observe  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  eat  not 
except  they  have  washed  their  hands  BY  POURING  A  LITTLE 
WATER  UPON  THEM  !"  The  words,  "  by  pouring  a  little 
water  on  them"  are  not  in  the  original ,  they  are  inserted 
by  Mr.  Campbell.  And,  in  the  name  of  wonder,  I  would 
demand  does  the  word  NiTrrw  (Nipto)  necessarily  limit  the 
mode  of  washing  to  u  pouring  a  little  water  on  the  hands  VT 
Does  it  not  mean  to  wash  ;  and  simply  "  wash  5"  without 
referring  in  the  least  to  the  mode  ;  whether  by  pouring 
the  water  on  the  hands,  or  by  dipping  them  I  But  let  us 
go  on  with  Mr.  Campbell's  translation  :  "  For  the  Phari- 
sees, and  indeed  all  the  Jews  who  observe  the  tradition  of 
the  elders,  eat  not  except  they  have  washed  their  hands 
by  pouring  a  little  water  upon  them :  and  when  they 
come  from  the  market,  BY  DIPPING  THEM."  Does  he  call 
this  a  translation  of  the  words  ^  ^aimouvrai.  1  Does  the 
verb  baptizo  then  mean,  TO  DIP  THE  HANDS  1  I  repeat  it : 
a  comment  this  may  be  ;  but  it  is  no  simple  nor  faithful 
translation  of  the  word  of  God.  Nor  can  a  faithful  trans- 
lation of  the  passage  be  made,  giving  to  baptize  the  mean- 
ing of  immerse,  without  making  the  passage  speak  that 
which  Mr.  Campbell  held  as  not  true.  Carson  is  right, 
and  must  have  the  judgment  of  every  unbiassed  scholar  in 
his  favor,  that  Campbell's  notion  of  making  this  baptism 
refer  to  the  hands  by  dipping  them,  is  "  an  ingenious  de- 
vice, without  any  authority  from  the  genius  and  prac- 
tice of  the  language." 

Campbell's  translation  of  Luke  xi.  38,  is  still'more  re- 
markable. Luke,  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  says,  "  The 
Pharisees  marvelled  that  Jesus  had  not  first  been  baptiz- 
ed before  dinner"  (^a™^).  Which  Campbell  thus 
translates :  "  But  the  Pharisee  was  surprised  to  observe 


BAPTIST  ERRORS.  31 

that  he  USED  NO  WASHING  before  dinner."  Here  the  dis- 
tinction between  washing  and  dipping  cannot  be  pretend- 
ed :  and  what  becomes  of  Campbell's  argument  about 
"  immerse"  as  being  the  only  proper  meaning  of  the  word 
"  baptize  1"  Here  the  Scripture  says,  The  Pharisee  mar- 
velled that  Jesus  had  not  been  baptized  before  dinner. 
Campbell  dares  not  translate  the  word  baptize  here  by  the 
word  immerse :  nor  does  he  find  it  possible  to  introduce 
the  word  "  hands :"  The  first  would  make  the  Bible  speak 
falsehood,  and  the  latter  would  be  too  gross  an  "  alteration 
of  the  diction  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  He  therefore  gives  up 
all  talk  about  immersing  or  dipping — and  says  "  He  used 
NO  WASHING  before  dinner  :"  and  so  is,  after  all,  driven  on  to 
the  very  ground  adopted  in  our  common  English  translation. 

PROFESSOR  RIPLEY  ON  MARK  vii.  4,  AND  LUKE  xi.  38. 

The  remarks  of  Professor  Ripley  on  these  two  passages, 
in  his  examination  of  Professor  Stuart,  are,  it  seems  to  me, 
as  curious  a  piece  of  non-committal,  and  of  tripping  lightly 
over  ground  on  which  one  dares  not  tread  firmly,  as  can 
be  found  in  the  whole  compass  of  Biblical  criticism. 

He  thinks  the  passage  in  Mark  may  be  rendered,  "  with- 
out the  least  violence  to  its  language,"  so  as  to  make  it 
read  that  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews  immerse  their 
whole  bodies  as  often  as  they  come  from  the  market.  May 
be  rendered  !  without  violence  to  the  language !  Is  that 
the  proper  reading  1  Is  that  the  truth,  concerning  what 
was  customarily  done  by  the  Jews  upon  coming  from  the 
market  1  Does  Professor  Ripley  believe  that  such  a  custom 
was  so  universal  and  so  invariable  among  the  Jews,  as  to 
make  it  a  matter  of  wonder,  that  Jesus  should  sit  down  to 
dinner  without  having  first  immersed  his  whole  body! 
Hear  him.  "  That  some  of  the  stricter  sort,  that  many, 
enough  to  justify  the  Evangelist's  general  expression,  did 


32  A  REFUTATION   OF 

practise  total  ablution  on  the  occasion  mentioned,  is  alto- 
gether   credible."    Some  —  of  the    stricter    sort! 

many  !  enough  to  justify  the  Evangelist ! is  altogether 

credible !  Then  Professor  Ripley  dares  not  join,  without 
misgiving,  in  affirming  that  "  all  the  Jews"  had  the  cus- 
tom of  immersing  themselves  when  they  came  from  the 
market  1  No.  He  says,  "  In  the  absence  of  clear  satisfying 
proof,  it  is  not  becoming  to  make  positive  assertions." 
How  is  this  1  The  word  baptize  mean  exclusively  im- 
merse : — the  Holy  Ghost  affirm  that  they  baptize  them- 
selves ; — and  yet  no  "  clear  satisfying  proof  that  they  im- 
mersed themselves !  Is  the  witness  not  a  credible  one,  or 
is  there  some  doubt  whether  the  word  means  immerse  1 
But  Professor  Ripley  says  he  is  by  no  means  satisfied  that 
this  is  a  "  necessary  view  of  the  passage,"  viz.  that  they 
immersed  themselves.  "  Necessary  /"  Will  he  hold  to  it 
at  all  \  We  shall  see.  But  says  he  again,  "  However 
striking  the  language  of  Mark  may,  by  some,  be  consider- 
ed, as  recognizing  such  a  practice,  (and  the  language  is 
certainly  coincident  with  such  a  practice,  especially 
when  we  look  at  it  by  the  investigations  respecting  bap- 
tize on  the  preceding  pages,)  yet  I  am  not  disposed  to  urge 
it"  Not  disposed  to  urge  it ?  Does  he  believe  it \  Will 
he  venture  to  stand  upon  that  ground  \  Will  he  venture 
either  to  affirm  it  or  deny  it  1  No — He  dares  not  rest  upon 
either  ground,  and  make  the  Bible  read  either,  "  except 
they  immerse  themselves  ;"  or,  "  except  they  immerse 
their  hands"  He  gently  feels  the  ground  of  the  first  with 
his  foot,  but  dares  not  venture  upon  it.  He  then  poises 
himself  and  presses  with  the  other  foot  upon  other  ground  $ 
but  he  dares  not  rest  upon  this  and  abandon  the  first. 
With  regard  to  the  first  he  says,  "  In  the  absence  of  clear, 
satisfying  proof,  it  is  not  becoming  to  make  any  positive 
assertions:"  "the  language  is  coincident"  with  such  a 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  33 

practice :"  "  it  may  be  so  rendered  without  the  least  vio- 
lence :"  "yet  I  am  not  disposed  to  urge  it."  With  regard 
to  the  second  he  says,"  But  assuming  the  ground,  that  the 
evangelist  did  not  intend  to  distinguish  a  total  bathing 
from  a  partial  washing,  I  again  inquire  did  he  distinguish 
one  sort  of  partial  washing,  from  another  sort  of  partial 
washing,  one  of  which  sorts  was  performed  by  dipping  the 
hands  into  water"  And  yet,  assuming  this  ground,  he 
assumes  it  only  to  argue :  he  reaches  back  to  the  other, 
and  reminds  us  again  that  he  has  "  already  said  that  the 
word  GaTTTiawTat  in  this  passage,  "MAY  WITHOUT  ANY 
VIOLENCE"  be  considered  as  distinguishing  a  total  immersion 
from  a  washing  of  the  hands.  Thus  he  will  venture  for- 
ward to  argue  upon  one  ground,  provided  he  may  keep 
open  a  safe  retreat  to  the  other.  How  firmly  he  may  feel 
the  ground  under  him  may  be  inferred  by  his  evident  con- 
cern to  keep  open  a  retreat  to  the  ground  on  which, 
alas,  he  is  afraid  to  stand ;  and  concerning  which  he  ad- 
mits that  there  is  an  "  absence  of  clear,  satisfying  proof." 

Standing  thus  with  light  and  uncertain  tread  upon  both 
grounds,  he  is  compelled  to  make  the  Bible  give  an  un- 
certain sound :  and  while  professing  to  fix  the  sense  with 
critical  accuracy,  he  actually  proposes  to  make  it  read,  in 
both  passages,  with  an  ALIAS.  After  the  word  baptize, 
(wash)  in  Mark  vii.  4*,  (which  he  would  read  "  immerse, 
or  bathe")  he  says,  "  The  word  hands  may  be  considered 
as  understood,  or  the  word  themselves  may  be  understood." 
There  is  an  "  absence  of  clear  satisfying  proof"  that  they 
immersed  themselves  ;  and  he  is  not  certain  that  they  sim- 
ply immersed  their  hands.  So  he  would  split  the  differ- 
ence by  making  the  Bible  read  both  ways,  putting  in  an 
ALIAS.  In  the  same  manner,  in  Luke  xi.  38,  he  proposes 
the  introduction  of  the  same  double  reading  for  one  single 
word.  "  Jind  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marvelled 
3* 


34  A   REFUTATION   OF 

that  he  had  not  first  washed  before  dinner :  that  he  had 
not  first  IMMERSED,  that  is,  himself,  OR  his  hands." 

I  have  some  fault  to  find  with  Professor  Ripley's  criti- 
cism, on  the  score  of  grammatical  accuracy  ;  for  this,  too, 
it  appears  to  me,  he  has  sacrificed  on  the  altar  of  exclusive 
immersion. 

Says  Professor  Ripley,  "  The  verb  (0  anna  wren)  is  in  the 
middle  voice  ;  and  as  there  is  no  object  expressed  after  it, 
it  would  be  lawful,  in  order  to  express  the  Greek,  to  em- 
ploy, as  Professor  Stuart  has,  the  word  themselves  as  being 
contained  in  the  verb  itself."  This  is  correct,  save  that 
instead  of  simply  being  lawful,  to  do  as  Professor  Stuart 
has  done,  it  is  indispensable  to  do  so,  unless  you  can  trans- 
late it  by  an  English  word,  which  like  the  Greek  Middle 
voice  of  a  transitive  verb,  has  a  reflexive  sense,  implying 
that  the  agent  is  himself  both  the  subject  and  the  object  of 
the  verb.  Thus,  if  we  say,  "  Except  they  wash  ; — the 
meaning  is  except  they  wash  themselves :  or  if  we  say 
except  they  bathe  /"  the  object  of  the  bathing  is  still 
themselves.  But  in  what  follows,  it  appears  to  me  that 
Professor  Ripley  is  most  palpably  and  indefensibly  in  the 
wrong.  He  says,  "  As  the  verb  vi^v™  (wash)  in  the 
former  part  of  the  passage,  has,  in  the  middle  voice,  an 
object  (x^pas— hands)  after  it,  it  is  certainly  justifiable, 
to  maintain,  that  the  verb  in  the  latter  part  of  the  pas- 
sage, (favTiffuvrai)  has  the  same  word  understood  after  it  for 
its  object." 

Now  the  middle  voice  does  indeed  admit  an  object  after 
it,  as  in  the  case  of  vi^vrai.  It  would  therefore  have  been 
justifiable  for  the  writer  to  have  placed  an  object  after 
tfaTrno-coi/rcu, — had  his  meaning  allowed  it.  But  when  the 
writer  omits  the  object  in  such  a  case,  and  the  meaning  of 
the  word  is  still  reflexive,  the  subject  of  the  verb  is  its  im- 
plied object.  When  the  writer  in  such  a  case  omits  to 


BAPTIST  ERRORS.  35 

express  another  object,  we  pervert  his  meaning,  if  we  un- 
derstand or  supply  an  object  other  than  the  one  implied  in 
the  very  form  of  the  verb, — which  makes  its  object  iden- 
tical with  its  agent.  Thus  Professor  Stuart  has  most  gram- 
matically read  the  word  ^^no^vrai  (Baptisontai)  "  they 
wash  themselves"  And  it  certainly  is  not  "  justifiable  5" 
— it  is  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  rules  of  grammar,  to 
supply,  as  Professor  Ripley  has  done,  the  word  hands  in- 
stead of  themselves. 

In  Luke  xi.  38,  the  word  is  in  the  passive  voice.     It 
not  only  has  not  the  word  "  hands"  after  it,  but  does  not 
admit  the  word  to  be  supplied  as  its  object.     The  gram- 
matical rendering  is,  "  that  he  had  not  been  baptized"   The 
passage  in  Mark  vii.  4,  shows  that  under  such  circum- 
stances,  people   baptized  themselves  ;  (they   did   it  for 
themselves  ;  they  were  not  baptized  by  others.)     Hence,  it 
is  doing  justice  to  the  meaning,  to  say,  without  being  tied 
down   to  grammatical   nicety, — "  that  he   had  not   first 
washed"  or  "  that  he  had  not  first  washed  himself"   This 
does  not  change  the  object  concerning  which  the  baptism 
is  affirmed.      But  to  supply  the  word  hands,  as  Professor 
Ripley  proposes,  is  to  take  an  unwarrantable  license.     It 
does  violence  to  the  grammatical  construction,  and  changes 
the  object  of  the  affirmation.      It  is  quite  as  gross  a  viola- 
tion  of  grammatical  usage,  as  though  the  passage  were 
made  to  read  in  English,  "  That  he  had  not  first  been  bap- 
tized his  hands"      I  will  only  add,  that  the  word  hands 
is  not  in  this  passage,  or  near  it.     The  word  baptize  used 
alone  and  simply,  as  it  is  here  used  by  Luke,  has  no  in- 
herent quality  by  which  it  should  be  thought  to  be  limited 
in  the  action  which  it  expresses  to  the  hands  alone.     The 
word  hands  is  imported  through  the  channel  of  commen- 
tary ;  and   commentary   elaborated,   as  I   think   I    have 
shown,  by  a  process  of  bad  criticism. 


36  A   REFUTATION   OF 


THE    CONCLUSION. 

After  a  careful  examination  of  these  passages,  and  care- 
fully weighing  all  that  has  been  said  upon  them  by  every 
Baptist  author  within  my  reach,  I  am  utterly  unable  to 
conjecture  a  reason  why  I  should  doubt,  that  the  word 
baptize  in  these  passages  does  not  mean  immerse,  and 
cannot  be  so  translated  without  either  corrupting  the  text, 
or  making  the  Bible  speak  falsehood.  It  may  be  con- 
sidered,  I  think,  a  matter  beyond  question,  that  if  Camp- 
bell, or  Ripley,  or  Woolsey  could  have  given  a  faithful 
translation  of  these  passages  —  rendering  the  word  baptize 
truly  and  explicitly  by  the  word  immerse  —  they  would 
by  no  means  have  failed  to  do  so.  If  Carson  or  Judd  had 
seen  any  way  to  escape  from  the  difficulty,  without 
making  the  passage  affirm  what  they  evidently  found  it 
so  difficult  to  believe,  and  what  many  of  their  brethren 
deem  a  falsehood,  they  would  certainly  have  availed 
themselves  of  that  way  of  escape. 

If  the  first  of  these  things  is  possible  to  be  done,  let  it 
be  done  now.  Let  us  take  no  advantage  of  what  may, 
perhaps,  be  claimed  to  be  an  oversight : — if  a  translation 
of  these  passages  can  be  given,  on  the  principle  of  ex- 
plicitly and  faithfully  substituting  the  word  immerse  for 
the  original  word  baptize, — a  translation  which  shall 
neither  substitute  a  human  comment  for  the  word  of  God, 
nor  make  the  Bible  speak  falsehood,— in  the  name  of 
truth  let  it  be  done.  But  if  this  cannot  be  done,  then 
our  Baptist  brethren  must  give  it  up  as  absolutely  certain, 
that,  according  to  the  Word  of  God,  immersion  is  not 
essential  to  baptism.  If  such  a  translation  cannot  be 
made,  then  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  when  the  Scrip- 
ture speaks  of  the  baptism  ol  Jesus,  or  of  the  eunuch,  or 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  37 

of  the  jailer,  or  of  Paul,  or  of  any  other  persons,  it  is  not 
to  be  understood  as  meaning  that  they  were  immersed, 
through  any  virtue  of  the  word  baptize.  If  it  should  be 
supposed  or  proved,  that  any  were  baptized  by  immersion, 
still  it  is  certain  that  the  baptism  did  not  lie  in  the  mode 
of  immersion ,  but  that  immersion  was  baptism  only  as  it 
was  a  mode  of  washing,  or  of  purifying  by  a  ceremonial 
application  of  water.  If  such  a  translation  cannot  be 
made,  then  it  can  no  longer  be  a  matter  of  question,  that 
our  Baptist  brethren,  in  making  immersion  essential  to 
baptism,  have  commanded  that  which  Christ  never  re- 
quired, and  added  to  the  Word  of  God. 

BAPTIST   MISSIONARY   TRANSLATIONS. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  claim  that  "  to  them  is  committed 
the  sole  guardianship  of  pure  and  faithful  translations  of 
the  oracles  of  God  into  the  languages  of  the  earth"* 
I  should  like  to  know  how  their  foreign  translations  of 
these  two  passages,  in  Mark  vii.  4  and  Luke  xi.  38,  read. 
Do  they  make  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews  immerse 
themselves  as  often  as  they  come  from  the  market !  or  do 
they  make  them  simply  dip  their  hands?  Which  of 
these  two  acts  do  our  Baptist  brethren — "the  sole  guar- 
dians of  pure  and  faithful  translations"  —  teach  the  hea- 
then is  the  baptism  which  the  Holy  Ghost  speaks  of  in 
Mark  vii.  4  1  Do  they  teach  the  heathen  to  believe  that 
the,  Pharisee  marvelled  that  the  Savior  had  not  immersed 
himself  before  dinner ;  or  that  he  had  not  dipped  his 
hands  before  dinner  1  Methinks  the  "  guardians  of  pure 
and  faithful  translations"!  should  agree  in  this  matter. 


*  Am.  and  For.  Bible  Soc.  Rep.,  1840,  p.  79. 
t  Says  Professor  Eaton  in  his  speech  before  the  Baptist  Bible 
Society  at  their  anniversary,  (Report  of  Am,  and  For.  Bible  Soc.9 


38  A   REFUTATION  OF 

Infallibility  should  not  be  divided ;  and  where  it  is  so,  the 
division  shows  that  neither  party  is  infallible.  The  truth 
may  lie  on  neither  side. 

With  these  coadjutors  ;  Campbell  and  Woolsey  on  my 
right  hand,  and  Carson  and  Judd  on  my  left,  I  should  like 
to  go  and  knock  at  the  door  of  the  Baptist  Foreign  Mission- 
ary establishments,  and  inquire  —  Brethren,  how  do  you 
translate  the  word  of  God!  If  they  answer — We  make 
the  Bible  say  that  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews  immerse 
themselves  as  often  as  they  come  from  the  market :  then 
Campbell  and  Woolsey  shall  reply : — Brethren,  this  is  not 
right,  you  make  the  word  of  God  speak  falsehood.  If  the 
missionaries  answer,  We  make  the  bible  say  that  the 
Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews  dip  their  hands  simply,  when 
they  come  from  the  market ; — then  the  brethren  on  my 
left  shall  reply  , — Carson  and  Judd  shall  make  answer  ; — 
"  Brethren,  the  word  of  God  says  that  the  Pharisees  and 
all  the  Jews,  immerse  themselves,  before  eating,  as  often 
as  they  come  from  the  market ;"  and  you  have  given  no 
faithful  translation.  You  have  corrupted  the  word  of 
God.  You  have  "  corrected  and  altered  the  diction  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  From  the  sword  of  the  brethren,  —  either 


p.  79,)  '«  Never,  sir,  was  there  a  chord  struck  that  vibrated  simul- 
taneously through  so  many  BAPTIST  hearts,  from  one  extremity  of 
the  land  to  the  other,  as  when  it  was  announced  that  the,  heathen 
world  must  look  to  THEM  ALONE  for  an  unveiled  view  of  the  glories  of 
the  gospel  of  Christ"  "  A  deep  conviction  seized  the  minds  of 
almost  the  whole  body,  that  they  were  DIVINELY  AND  PECULIARLY  SET 
for  the  defence  and  dissemination  of  the  gospel,  as  delivered  to 
men  by  its  Heavenly  Author.  A  new  zeal  in  their  Master's 
cause,  and  unwonted  kindlings  of  fraternal  love  glowed  in  their 
hearts  ;  and  an  attracting  and  concentrating  movement,  reaching 
to  the  utmost  extremity  of  the  mass,  began,  and  has  been  going 
on  and  increasing  in  power  ever  since." 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  39 

of  those  on  my  right  hand  or  of  those  on  my  left,  the 
missionary  translators  cannot  escape.  And  now  having 
proved  the  missionary  translation  unfaithful — the  brethren 
on  my  right  and  the  brethren  on  my  left  shall  turn  their 
arms  against  each  other.*  These  shall  demonstrate  that 
those  have  made  the  Bible  speak  falsehood ;  those  shall 
demonstrate  that  these  have  disguised  and  corrupted  the 
word  of  God.  Neither  can  resist  the  assault  of  the  other : 
each  scheme  is  certainly  and  totally  destroyed.  And 
when  the  battle  is  fought,  in  which  I  have  nothing  to  do 
but  to  stand  still  and  wait  the  issue — when  the  battle  is 
fought,  till  each  party  is  so  beaten  that  he  can  fight  no 
longer  5  I  would  take  them  by  the  hand,  and  say,  Brethren, 


*-Prof.  Eaton  of  Hamilton  Baptist  Institute,  in  his  speech  before 
the  Baptist  Bible  Society,  at  their  anniversary  in  1840,  [See  Report 
of  said  Society,  p.  74,]  says,  "The  translation"  of  the  Baptist 
Missionaries  "  is  so  undeniably  correct,"  that  its  incorrectness, could 
not  be  "pretended,"  *'  without  committing  the  objectors'  character 
for  scholarship  and  candor.  "  Who  are  they,  sir,"  said  he,  "  who 
cavil  about  the  plain  meaning  of  the  original  word  whose  tranr- 
lation  is  so  offensive  ?  Are  they  the  Porsons,  and  the  Campbells, 
and  the  Greenfields,  and  such  like  ?"  "No  sir," — "  But  the  cavil- 
lers, sir,  are  men  who,  whatever  may  be  their  standing  in  other 
respects,  have  no  reputation  as  linguists  and  philologists  to  lose. 
There  really  can  be  no  rational  dopbt  in  the  mind  of  any  sound  and 
candid,  Greek  scholar,  about  the  evident  meaning  of  the  words  in 
question.  ,  I  venture  to  say,  at  the  risk  of  the  little  reputation  for 
Greek  scholarship  which  I  possess,  that  there  are  no  words  of  plain- 
er  import  in  the  Bible.  The  profane  tampering  which  has  been 
applied  to  these  words,"  &c.  &c. 

I  shall  not  dispute  here,  that  all  this  may  be  very  modest  and 
catholic.  It  is  at  least  such  matter  as  the  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society  are  willing  to  append  to  their  report  and  publish  to 
the  world.  But  I  should  like  to  see  which  side  Prof.  Eaton  would 
take  amid  these  combatants ;  and  in  what  plight  he  would  stand 
when  the  battle  is  over,  take  which  side  he  would. 


40  A   REFUTATION   OF 

abandon  the  ground  on  which  you  must  mutually  destroy 
each  other,  or  else  fight  on  forever.  Do  you  not  see  that 
each  is  defenceless  in  his  own  position  ;  and  irresistible 
when  he  attacks  that  of  the  other  1  Between  you  both 
the  truth  comes  out  clear  ;  that  baptism  is  not  necessarily 
immersion ;  and  that  while  you  endeavor  to  make  it  so, 
you  are  on  the  one  hand  compelled  to  make  the  Bible 
speak  falsehood ;  and  on  the  other,  to  alter  and  corrupt 
the  word  of  God. 

And  what  shall  they  do  1  Shall  they  make  peace  on 
the  only  rational  ground  1  Or  shall  one  yield  his  judg- 
ment to  the  other,  and  vote  that  one  opinion  to  be  infalli- 
ble 1  Or  for  the  sake  of  saving  the  Baptist  cause,  shall 
they  strike  hands  and  be  made  friends :  agreeing,  on  the 
one  party,  to  allow  the  Bible  to  speak  falsehood,  provided 
it  may  only  speak  immersion';  and  agreeing,  on  the  other 
party,  provided  immersion  may  be  retained,  to  admit  the 
word  of  God  to  be  altered,  and  disguised  and  corrupted, 
by  "  an  ingenious  conceit,  without  any  authority  from  the 
practice  of  the  language  " .  in  which  the  New  Testament 
was  written  1 

I  would  respectfully  ask  our  Baptist  brethren  to  look 
into  this  matter.  I  would  respectfully  call  their  attention 
to  the  necessity  laid  upon  them  in  their  present  position, 
of  falling  upon  one  of  the  three  points  of  the  alternative, 
which  here  presents  itself  to  them.  With  their  present 
disagreement,  in  which  a  part  of  them  side  with  Carson 
and  Judd,  and  a  part  with  Campbell  and  Woolsey,  it  is 
impossible  for  them  to  give  a  faithful  translation,  on  the 
Baptist  principle,  without  entering  into  a  compromise, 
which  shall  either  make  the  Bible  speak  falsehood,  or  else 
alter  and  pervert  the  sacred  diction  of  the  word  of  God.  I 
would  respectfully  suggest  to  the  brethren  of  each  of  these 
two  parties,  the  necessity  of  looking  into  these  foreign  trans- 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  41 

lations  ;  and  of  taking  heed,  lest  in  their  zeal  to  maintain 
immersion,  they  unconsciously  fall  into  such  a  compro- 
mise as  this.  It  surely  becomes  them  to  whom  "  is  com- 
mitted the  sole  guardianship  of  pure  arid  faithful  transla- 
tions of  the  oracles  of  God,  into  the  languages  of  the 
earth,"  to  be  careful  and  uncompromising  here. 

THE    PROOF    CUMULATIVE. 

I  consider  the  proof  from  these  passages  in  Mark  vii.  4, 
and  Luke  xi.  38,  absolutely  conclusive  and  irrefragable, 
that  neither  the  apostles  nor  the  Holy  Ghost  which  in- 
spired them,  considered  the  word  baptize,  as  denoting  a 
sacred  ritual,  to  mean  necessarily  immerse ;  or  an  immer- 
sion to  be  essential  to  baptism.  But  this  proof  stands  not 
alone.  It  is  largely  and  unequivocally  corroborated  in 
other  passages  of  Scripture. 

As  my  present  design  is  not  to  argue  this  matter  over 
again,  I  must  content  myself  with  briefly  referring  to  some 
of  these  passages  and  to  some  other  sources  of  proof. 

In  my  published  discourses  on  Baptism,  I  have  exhibit- 
ed, in  brief,  (pp.  54,  55,)  the  argument  from  the  "  Divers 
Baptisms"  spoken  of  in  Heb.  ix.  10.  By  a  course  of  ar- 
gument entirely  different  from  that  which  I  have  employ- 
ed, President  Beecher  has  shown,  I  think  beyond  dispute, 
that  these  "Baptisms"  refer  to  things  which  certainly 
were  not  immersions.  The  substance  of  his  argument  is 
this :  1.  "  The  whole  passage  relates  to  the  effects  of  the 
Mosaic  ritual  entirely  on  persons,  and  not  on  things" 
2.  "  The  c  Baptisms'  are  spoken  of  as  ENJOINED,  as  well  as 
other  rites.  But  of  persons,  NO  IMMERSIONS  AT  ALL  ARE 

ENJOINED  UNDER  THE  MOSAIC   RITUAL."       "  No    Washing    of 

persons  is  ever  enjoined  "  by  the  word  tabal,  to  immerse, 
even  in  a  single  instance,  nor  by  any  word  that  denotes 
immersion  —  but,  as  I  think,  without  exception,  by  the 


42  A   REFUTATION   OF 

word  Rahhats,  which  denotes  to  wash,  without  any  refer- 
ence  to  mode."  "  Those  who  read  the  English  version 
might  suppose  that,  where  the  direction  to  bathe  occurs, 
immersion  is  enjoined  ;  but  in  every  such  case  the  original 
is  only  to  wash."  Mr.  Beecher  does  not  deem  it  necessa- 
ry to  deny  that  the  bathing  might  sometimes  have  been 
done  by  immersion  ;  but  affirms  that  immersion  could  not 
be  deemed  necessary  from  any  thing  expressed  or  implied 
in  the  command.  The  command  being  to  wash,  or  puri- 
fy—- the  mode  was  not  a  matter  of  command. 

Even  immersion  would  be  no  compliance  with  the  com- 
mand, save  only  as  it  was  a  mode  of  washing.  The  word 
used  in  the  command,  is  the  same  as  that  used  in  Gen.  xviii. 
4,  "  Let  a  little  water,  I  pray  you,  be  fetched  and  WASH  your 
feet;"  Gen.  xliii.  31.  "And  he  washed  his  face  and 
went  out."  So  Levit.  xiv.  9.  "  Also,  he  shall  wash  his 
flesh  in  water,  and  he  shall  be  clean." 

President  Beecher  here  meets  the  Baptists  on  their  own 
ground,  and  shows  that,  if  Paul  refers  to  these  bathings 
when  he  speaks  of  "  Baptisms"  —  even  then  lie  cannot 
mean  "immersions"  But  Paul  does  not  specify  the 
bathing  as  any  part  of  what  he  means  ;  but  he  does  spe- 
cify the  u  sprinkling."  He  does  not  say  that  the  bathing 
"  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh,"  but  he  says  it 
is  "  The  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  the 
heifer  SPRINKLING  the  unclean,  that  sanctifieth." 

On  either  ground,  these  "  Divers  Baptisms"  are  not 
immersions  ;  and  to  translate  the  word  Qairrtapois  (Baptis- 
mois)  here,  by  the  word  immersions,  is  to  corrupt  and 
falsify  the  word  of  God.  I  need  not  refer  here  to  the 
baptisms  of  tables,  (couches,)  and  show  how  hard  our  Bap- 
tist brethren  find  themselves  pushed  to  be  able  to  make 
that  a  plausible  reading,  which  makes  the  Bible  speak  of 
the  "  IMMERSIONS  of  couches"  I  need  not  speak  of  all  the 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  43 

' 

startling  and  revolting  ideas  obtruded  upon  the  mind  by 
the  very  thought  of  making  "  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  read  "  immersed  in  the  Holy  Ghost." 

SCRIPTURAL   IDEA   OF    BAPTISM. 

For  giving  a  definition  to  baptize  which  shall  refer  to 
the  intent  and  the  effect,  and  omit  all  reference  to  the 
mode, — a  definition  which  shall  express  the  substance  of 
baptism  with  no  reference  to  the  circumstance, — we  have 
the  soundest  warrant  and  the  most  explicit  example  in  the 
word  of  God.  Thus  :  Jesus,  with  his  disciples,  was  bap- 
tizing in  Judea^  John  in  Enon  (John  iii:  22-26).  A 
question  arose  between  some  of  John's  disciples  and  the 
Jews,  "  about  PURIFYING."  To  settle  it,  they  come  and 
refer  it  to  John  under  the  shape  of  a  question  about  BAP- 
TIZING. Their  minds  fastened  on  the  substance,  not  on  the 
circumstance.  Their  idea  of  baptism  was  not  the  modern 
Baptist  idea.  Baptism,  with  them,  was  not  an  immersing 
but  a  purifying.  Their  question  is  about  baptizing  ;  but 
it  is  not  about  dipping,  or  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  or  im- 
mersing, but  about  PURIFYING  ;  and  they  state  the  question 
to  John  as  a  question  about  baptizing.  In  their  view  the 
words  baptize  and  purify  are  so  far  synonymous,  that  in  a 
debate  about  purifying  they  may  use  either  the  word  puri- 
fy or  the  word  baptize.  But  with  them  the  word  purify 
could  not  be  synonymous  with  immerse  :  for  their  com- 
mon purifications  of  persons  were  either  in  the  general 
mode  of  washing,  or  in  the  particular  mode  of  sprinkling, 
— never  necessarily  in  the  mo<Je  of  immersing. 

So  again  in  Mark  vii.  4,  there  is  a  talk  about  BAPTIZING  ; 
and  whatever,  was  done,  Mr.  Woolsey  justly  maintains  was 
done  by  the  use  of  the  "  water-pots."  But  John  ii.  6, 
speaks  of  these  water-pots  as  set  "  after  the  mariner  of  the 
PURIFYING  of  the  Jews"  Here  too,  baptism  is  not  an  im- 


44  A   REFUTATION   OF 

mersion  in  iact ;  much  less  in  the  idea.  The  idea  of  bap- 
tism here  is  not  a  mere  mode  of  applying  water — certainly 
not  the  mode  of  immersion,— but  a  PURIFYING.* 

So  again  in  Luke  xi.  38,  39,  upon  the  Pharisee's  won- 
dering that  Jesus  had  not  been  baptized  before  dinner,  our 
Lord  took  occasion  to  say  to  him,  "  Ye  Pharisees  make 
clean,  (in  the  original,  PURIFY,)  the  outside."  Here  nei- 
ther the  Savior  nor  the  Pharisee  considered  the  essence  of 
the  baptism  as  lying  in  the  mode,  but  in  the  intent  and  in 
the  effect.  Baptism,  in  their  view,  was  a  washing  or  pu- 
rifying. 

So  again  in  the  Apocrypha,  Judith  xii.  7,  it  is  said  that 
Judith  went  out  into  the  valley  of  Bethulia  and  washed 
(Sept.  baptized  herself)  in  .the  camp,  («-*•• »  m  *wO  AT 
(not  in),  a  fountain  of  water  in  the  camp.  The  context 
shows  that  the  object  of  this  baptizing  was  to  remove  a  cere- 
monial uncleanness.  "  She  without  doubt  strictly  obeyed 
the  law,  and  did^what  the  law  intended  that  she  should  do. 
But  the  law  in  such  cases  simply  commanded  washing 
(Lev.  xv.")  The  narrator  does  not  intend  to  signify  that 
she  went  beyond  the  law,  but  that  she  observed  k  :  and  in 


*  The  custom  of  washing  the  hands  before  eating,  as  it  still  pre- 
vails in  the  East,  was  this,  iC  When  they  wash,  the  water  is  poured 
from  a  vase  upon  the  hands  over  a  basin, — they  never  make  use  of  a 
basin  or  a  tub  to  wash  in,  as  is  the  practice  elsewhere,"  (Oscanyan, 
in  Kurtz,  p.  179.) 

In  John  ii.  6,  &c.,  where  there  were  set  six  water-pots  of  stone, 
after  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews  : — at  the  time  of  the 
middle  of  the  feast  these  water-pots  appear  to  have  been  empty, 
The  purifying,  (which  Mark  and  Luke  call  a  baptizing,)  had  been 
performed  not  by  the  guests  immersing  themselves  or  dipping 
their  hands  in  the  water-pots,  but  by  "  drawing  out,"  and,  probably 
by  carrying  and  pouring  the  water  on  the  hands.  If  this  be  so, 
then  our  Baptist  brethren  are  left  destitute  of  that  last,  but  unavail- 
ing refuge,  the  "  dipping  of  the  hands," 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  45 

his  view  wash  is  synonymous  with  baptize  in  denoting  a 
religious  ordinance — a  ceremonial  purification. 

So  in  Ecclesiasticus,  xxiv.  25.,  the  words  baptize  and 
wash  are  used  interchangably  as  purely  synonymous  : — 
"  He  that  baptizeth  himself  after  the  touching  of  a  dead 
body,  what  availeth  his  washing  ?"  The  allusion  is  to 
Numbers  xix.  11,  &c.,  where  the  law  simply  required 
washing,  or  purifying.  The  essential  thing  in  that  puri- 
fying was  performed  by  sprinkling;  and  of  him  who 
should  fail  in  this,  it  was  said,  "  because  the  water  of  sepa- 
ration was  not  sprinkled  upon  him,  he  shall  be, unclean  ; 
his  uncleanness  is  yet  upon  him." 

If  we  therefore  follow  the  Scripture  pattern,  or  the  pat- 
tern of  the  Greek  of  the  Apocrypha,  in  fixing  the  proper 
idea  of  the  word  baptize  as  used  to  denote  the  sacred  use 
of  water  in  a  religious  ordinance,  we  shall  entirely  omit  all 
reference  to  mode,  and  fix  our  thoughts  upon  the  intent 
and  the  effect  of  baptism  ,  the  substance  and  not  the  sha- 
dow. Baptism  will  not  tie  a  dipping,  or  an  immersing,  or 
a  pouring,  or  a  sprinkling,  but  a  WASHING,  a  PURIFYING. 

The  word  being  thus  used  in  the  New  Testament,  to 
denote  a  ritual  washing  or  purifying,  (which  it  never  sig- 
nified in  classic  Greek  :) — being  used  moreover  where  the 
MODE  of  purifying  was  either  sprinkling  or  pouring ;  and 
being,  still  further,  so  used  that  to  make  it  read  immerse 
would  make  the  Bible  speak  what  confessedly  is  not  true ; 
1  think  we  have  clearly, — and  established  beyond  the  possi- 
bility of  a  successful  denial, — a  generic  and  peculiar  New 
Testament  use  of  the  word  ;  in  which  use  baptize  prima- 
rily denotes  a  ritual  purifying  by  some  manner  of  appli- 
cation oficater,  which  is  called  "  the  WASHING  of  water  :" 
and  secondarily  it  denotes  an  inward  purifying  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  called  the  WASHING  of  regeneration" 

These  things  being  so,  how  idle  it  is  for  Mr.  Woolsey 
4* 


46  A   REFUTATION   OF 

to  inquire  as  he  does,  p.  109,  "  I  ask  again,  and  well  do 
my  Pedobaptist  brethren  know  to  their  discomfiture,  if 
any  application  of  water,  washing,  sprinkling,  pouring, 
#c.  means  baptism,  why  did  not  the  sacred  writers  some- 
times use  the  Greek  word  which  means  to  wash,  sprinkle, 
and  pour  V 

The  reason  is  plain :  and  Mr.  Woolsey  has  but  poorly 
considered  the  matter,  if  he  thinks  that  here  is  any  "  dis- 
comfiture," save  to  him  who  shoots  so  widely  from  the 
mark  as  to  allow  himself  to  ask  such  a  question.  I  an- 
swer: 

1.  Baptize  is  used  with  a  peculiar  but  generic  refer- 
ence to  this  purifying,  without  any  reference  to  mode. 
But  the  words  sprinkle  and  pour  are  not  so  used.     Their 
use,  in  the  New  Testament,  is  not  limited  to  the  sacred 
use  of  water ;  and  they  refer  to  a  mode ;  while  the  word 
baptize  in  the  New  Testament  refers  to  none.     They  can- 
not therefore  be  interchanged  with  baptize  as  though  they 
were  synonymous  with  it.     The  word  wash  is  so  inter- 
changed because  it  so  far  accords  with  baptize  as  not  to  re- 
fer to  any  particular  mode. 

2.  It  is  not  true  that  the  words  wash,  sprinkle,  pour, 
are  not  used  in  the  New  Testament  with  reference  to 
baptism.  As  often  as  any  thing  is  said  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  allusion  to  a  mode  of  baptism,  these  words  are  in- 
variably used.  As  to  the  word  wash,  the  Scriptures  refer  to 
baptism  as  the  WASHING  of  water  ;"  and  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  they  call "  The  WASHING  of  regeneration.  As 
to  the  word  sprinkle,  the  prophets  describe  the  purifying 
which  they  foretell,  as  a  sprinkling :  "  so  shall  he  sprinkle 
many  nations :"  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 

you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean."  As  to  the  word  pour,  the 
mode  of  the  Spirit's  baptizing  is  spoken  of  as  a  pouring,  a 

shedding  forth,  a  falling  upon.     But  where  do  you  read 


BAPTIST  ERRORS.  47 

of  the  immersing  of  (with)  "  water"  or  of  the  immersing 
of  many  "nations,"  or  of  the  immersing  of  regeneration," 
or  of  the  immersing  of  (in)  the  "  blood  of  Christ"]  No 
where  in  the  word  of  God :  no  where,  even  in  figure. 
The  very  idea  is  strange  and  preposterous.  I  will  not  say 
it  is  a  "  discomfiture;"  but  1  will  retort  the  question : — If 
it  be  so,  that  baptism  is  nothing  but  immersion,  and  that 
immersion  is  all  essential  to  it ;  why  is  it  that  we  never 
read  of  the  immersion  "  of  regeneration" — or  of  a  prom* 
ise,  then  will  I  immerse  you  in  "  clean  water  and  ye  shall 
be  clean  :" — or  of  the  immersion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  1 

After  asking  this  "  discomfiting"  question,  Mr.  Woolsey 
proceeds : — 

"  Every  man  who  has  heard  me  thus  far,  unless  he  be 
determined  to  sustain  some  party,  in  opposition  to  the 
dictates  of  his  enlightened  understanding,  and  in  violation 
of  the  conviction  of  his  conscience,  must  concede  that  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  *  *  . —  has  herein  signified  "  a  divine  in- 
stitution whose  mode  of  administration  is  immersion,  and 
immersion  only." 

This  is  a  sort  of  charitable  dogmatics  in  which  Mr. 
Woolsey  deals  without  reserve.  For  one,  I  certainly 
could  not  make  that  concession  without  sacrificing  the 
dictates  of  my  understanding,  and  the  conviction  of  my 
conscience.  I  must  be  allowed  to  take  an  appeal  from  the 
judgment  of  Mr.  Woolsey  to  the  judgment  of  the  last  day. 

To  me  it  seems  clear,  that  our  Baptist  brethren,  in 
making  immersion  essential  to  the  baptism,  have  departed 
entirely  from  the  Scriptural  use  of  the  word,  and  from  the 
true  Scriptural  idea.  They, have  turned  the  minds  of 
people  away  from  the  substance  to  the  shadow.  They 
have  turned  away  from  the  import  and  design  of  washing, 
to  the  mode  of  washing..  They  have  adopted  precisely 
that  mode  which  finds  least  countenance  in  the  word  of 


48  A   REFUTATION   OF 

God,  and  are  endeavoring,  both  by  proselytism  and  by  the 
compulsion  of  close  communion,  to  make  the  whole  world 
submit  to  their  judgment. 

They  often  intimate  to  us  the  inadequacy  of  the  mode 
of  sprinkling  by  representing  the  absurdity  of  washing, 
e.  g.  a  dish  that  needs  cleansing, — by  sprinkling  it.  Now 
the  relevancy  of  such  a  representation  depends  upon  the 
end  to  be  answered  by  the  washing.  If  a  dish  or  a  person 
needs  bodily  cleansing,  surely  sprinkling  is  not  sufficient ; 
nor  should  a  simple  dipping  seem  sufficient ; — there  should 
be  some  rubbing  and  scouring; — as  much  as  is  necessary 
to  accomplish  the  design.  If  the  end  of  baptism  be  "  the 
putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh,"  rather  than  "  the 
answer  of  a  good  conscience,"  then  surely  much  depends 
upon  the  quantity  of  water,  and  upon  the  thoroughness 
with  which  it  is  applied.  But  if  a  Leper  is  to  be  cere- 
monially cleansed,  it  is  sufficient  that  he  be  sprinkled. 
When  Christ  is  to  wash  many  nations  from  their  sins,  the 
representation  is  that  he  shall  "  sprinkle"  many  nations. 
When  our  Lord  said  to  Peter,  "  If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou 
hast  no  part  with  me ;"  Peter  would  make  much  of  the 
mode  of  washing,  and  desired  to  be  washed  all  over.  But 
our  Lord  corrected  the  error  that  looks  away  from  the 
meaning  and  design  of  the  washing  to  fasten  upon  the 
mode.  "  He  that  is  washed,  needeth  not  save  to  wash  his 
feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit."  The  principle  certainly  is 
applicable  to  the  subject  of  baptism :  and  to  me,  it  seems 
a  direct  rebuke  upon  the  attempt  to  make  the  mode 
essential. 

"But,"  say  our  Baptist  brethren,,"  you  consider  it  lawful 
to  baptize  by  immersion."  Certainly.  But  when  you 
make  immersion  essential  to  baptism,  and  we  submit  to 
receive  it  under  that  condition,  we  give  our  assent  to  have 
that  bound  which  Christ  has  left  free  :  we  give  our  assent 


BAPTIST    ERRORS.  49 

to  adding  to  the  command  of  our  Lord.  Under  such  cir- 
cumstances it  becomes  a  matter  of  duty  to  "  stand  fast  in 
that  liberty  wherewith  Christ  maketh  free." 

OUR  ENGLISH  TRANSLATORS,  AND  OUR  COMMON  ENGLISH  BIBLE. 

Mr.  Woolsey  demands  in  capitals,  p.  76,  "  WHY 
DID  THOSE  WHO  TRANSLATED  OUR  BlBLE  NOT  TRANSLATE 
BAPTIZE  AND  ITS  DERIVATIONS,  WHEN  THEY  CAME  TO  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT  ]  WHY  DID  THEY  TRANSFER  THE  GREEK 
WORDS  INTO  THEIR  ENGLISH  VERSION." 

"I  answer,"  says  he,  "iust  for  the  same  reason  that 

>        j  j 

induced  the  crafty  Bishop  Gardiner,  in  the  reign  of  Henry 
VIII.,  when  he  found  it  impossible  longer  to  withhold  an 
English  Testament,  to  assert  by  a  popish  stratagem,  that 
there  were  many  words  in  the  New  Testament  of  such 
majesty  that  they  were  not  to  be  translated." 

From  this,  Mr.  Woolsey  goes  on  to  devote  over  twenty 
pages  of  his  work,  to  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the 
translators  of  our  Bible  were  crafty,  designing  men,  who 
with  a  wicked  intent  covered  up  and  concealed  the  in- 
structions of  the  Holy  Ghost  with  regard  to  baptism  ;  and 
gave  us  what  he  has  elsewhere  denominated  "  A  Bible 
mutilated  and  disguised."  He  maintains  that  the  trans- 
lators were  not  at  liberty  "  to  follow  the  plain  import  of 
certain  words,  nor  the  convictions  of  their  own  con- 
science ;  (p.  80)  he  affirms  that  they  were  "  most  willing 
to  be  guided"  by  such  rules,  as  "  No  one,"  says  he, 
"  need  be  informed  of  the  very  special  pecuniary  interest 
bishops  and  priests  have  in  keeping  up  a  union  between 
church  and  state.  They  have  their  living,  as  it  is  termed ; 
and  in  too  many  instances  they  have  it  without  lifting  a 
finger  to  earn  it ! !  A  good  fat  Living,  drawn  from  the 
people  in  penury  and  want ! ! !"  p.  82.  He  represents 


50  A   REFUTATION   OF 

the  translators  as  concurring  in  a  design  to  have  the  Scrip- 
tures so  "  guarded  and  moulded,"  as  not  to  interfere  with 
the  "  darling  object  of  the  cunning  sovereign's"  "  aspiring 
ambition,  nor  subject,"  them  (the  king  and  bishops)  "  in 
their  arrogant  importance,  to  the  humility  and  fancied  in- 
convenience of  being  immersed  so  long  as  they  could 
suppress  their  convictions  of  conscience,  and  satisfy  them- 
selves with  being  sprinkled" 

To  back  up  what  he  says  about  the  dishonesty  of  the 
translators*  with  regard  to  the  word  baptize,  he  complains 
of  their  translation  of  the  word  e^A^o,  Church;  in- 
timates, p.  94,  that  the  very  word  Church,  was  wrongly 
foisted  into  the  New  Testament  to  promote  a  union  of 
church  and  state.  Here  he  quotes,  (as  I  have  already 
mentioned),  Home  Tooke  on  this  "wicked"  word, 
church;  taking  care  to  put  the  words  "slaughter"  "pil- 
lage" and  "  cheats"  into  italics  ;  runs  on  in  a  long  note 
on  the  "patriotic  Tooke,"  "indicted  for  high  treason,  be- 

*  The  Rev.  Thomas  Curtis,  an  Englishman  by  birth  and  edu- 
cation, and  a  Baptist  of  high  standing,  in  his  speech  before  the 
American  Bible  Society,  May,  1837,  says  of  our  common  version, 
11  That  venerable  body  of  forty.seven  good  and  learned  men  in 
the  days  of  King  James,  who  were  the  authors  of  this  production, 
have  had  no  successors.  Not  only  has  there  been  no  combination 
of  forty  seven  such  men  since  their  day — there  has  been  none  of 
ten  such  men."  '<  While  none  say  that  it  is  perfect,  or  claim  for 
it  the  authority  of  inspiration,  this  we  will  say,  and  say  LOUDLY, 
Let  the  version  alone,  till  men  equally  competent  to  the  task, 
possessing  not  only  equal  learning  but  equal  leisure,  shall  meet  to 
review  the  labors  of  their  forefathers,  I  repeat  the  monition,  Let 
it  alone,  on  the  peril  of  your  consistency  and  credit,  and  on  the 
higher  peril  of  a  frown  from  the  Lord  of  the  Church  ;  I  entreat 
you  let  it  alone,"  ***«»!  have  but  one  word  more  to  say.  In 
the  name  of  common  sense  and  Christian  sense,  to  you,  Sir,  I  say 
it  humbly,  but  earnestly,  LET  IT  ALONE." 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  51 

cause  he  maintained  the  right  of  the  people  to  an  equal 
representation:  and  praises  his  "very  patriotic  spirit," 
evinced  in  his  raising  a  subscription  for  the  suffering 
citizens  of  Boston,  when  the  martial  laws  were  enforced 
against  them,  "for  opposing  British  taxation,  and  for 
destroying  the  tea."  (p.  94.) 

After  going  on  with  such  matters  and  in  such  a  strain 
for  eighteen  pages,  he  says,  p.  95,  "  You  will  be  enabled 
to  see  why  baptize,  baptism,  ftc.,  are  not  translated,  but 
transferred  into  our  English  bible.  To  translate  them 
would  betray  the  erroneous  practice  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land, and  force  all  her  bishops  and  ministers  to  confess 
that  they  had  been  in  an  egregious  error,  and  that  tht 
Baptists  were  right"  On  p.  90,  he  calls  our  English 
Bible,  a  "  specimen  of  hiding  from  the  heathen  a  divine  and 
positive  institution  of  the  Gospel  ;"  a  "  version"  that  blots 
out  what  God  "  has  made  plain." 

But  these  twenty  pages  of  direct  assault  upon  our  trans- 
lation do  not  content  him.  He  breaks  out  upon  it  again 
and  again,  as  though  his  heart  could  never  discharge  itself 
of  his  bitterness  towards  it.  On  p.  152,  he  says,  "  So  in- 
tent were  the  translators  in  following  out  the  king's  design, 
by  concealing  the  original  import  of  the  ecclesiastical 
words,  as  in  some  instances,  GROSSLY  TO  PERVERT  THE 
MEANING  OF  THE  SACRED  TEXT."  "  I  have,"  says  he, 
"  before  furnished  you  some  instances  where  the  sense  of 
Scripture  has  been  thus  corrupted,  and  turned  entirely 
away  from  its  original  import." 

He  goes  on  to  specify  another  instance  of  what  he  terms, 
"  The  glaring  perversion  of  Scripture,  by  suppressing  the 
word  baptize,  and  substituting  the  word  wash  in  its  place." 
On  p.  153j  he  says,  "  The-  translators  of  our  English 
Bible,  for  the  sake  of  suppressing  the  true  import  of  the 


52  A    REFUTATION   OF 

Greek  words  baptize  and  baptism,  have  not  only  conceal- 
ed from  our  English  readers,  so  much  of  the  instructions 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  &c.  "  but  also,  they  have  represent- 
ed the  Holy  Ghost  as  using  the  most  stupid  tautology." 

After  the  examination  which  I  have  already  made  of 
Mr.  Woolsey's  translation  of  this  passage,  and  of  that  in 
Luke  xi.  38,  the  intelligent  reader,  I  doubt  not,  will  per- 
ceive that  the  "  glaring  perversion  of  the  sacred  text,"  the 
"  suppressing  of  the  true  import  of  the  Greek  word  bap- 
tize," and  the  concealing  from  the  English  reader  the  in- 
structions of  the  Holy  Ghost,  "  is  not  on  the  part  of  our 
common  English  version,  but  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Woolsey." 
Our  English  version  will,  I  am  confident,  in  this  matter 
abide  the  most  scrutinizing  test.  The  more  it  is  examin- 
ed, the  more,  I  am  persuaded,  the  integrity,  and  accuracy, 
and  profound  learning  of  our  English  translators  will 
shine. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  I  should  undertake  the  work  of 
defending  our  English  translation.  I  should  as  soon  think 
of  defending  the  clear  light  of  heaven,  from  the  envious 
smoke  of  a  coal-pit.  Our  translation  has  stood  the  test  of 
time.  The  ablest  scholars  that  the  world  has  produced, 
have  born  their  testimony  to  the  surpassing  excellence  and 
faithfulness  of  our  common  version  of  the  word  of  God. 
The  rigid  Puritan  has  vied  with  the  rigid  Churchman  in 
his  praises  of  that  translation.  The  follower  of  Calvin 
and  the  follower  of  Wesley  meet  in  this  version  as  on 
common  and  sacred  ground.  The  more  that  translation  is 
examined  by  competent  men,  the  more  is  it  admired  ;-  and 
still  the  more  admired  by  how  much  they  who  examine  it 
are  the  more  competent.  Mr.  Woolsey  may  shake  the 
confidence  of  his  people  in  our  common  Bible  5— if  a  tithe 
of  what  he  has  alledged  against  it  be  true,  their  confidence 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  53 

in  it  ought  not  only  be  shaken,  but  utterly  destroyed.* 
And  then,  where  shall  they  rest  1  To  what  quarter  shall 
they  turn  for  the  word  of  God  1  They  cannot  read  the 
original.  In  such  a  dishonest  version  as  that  of  King 
James,  how  shall  they  know  how  to  separate  the  precious 
from  the  vile  1  Like  the  poor  papists,  they  must  learn 
the  word  of  God  from  the  lips  of  the  priest.  They  must 
depend  upon  the  competency,  the  accuracy,  and  the  fideli- 
ty of  Mr.  Wools  ey  ;  —  they  must  depend  upon  this  ground 
till  there  shall  be  a  Baptist  Bible  ;  and  when  such  a  Bible  is 
made,  if  it  is  made  conformable  to  the  vocabulary  prefixed 
to  the  present  Baptist  editions  of  our  common  version,  they 
must  have  the  satisfaction  of  knowing,  that,  if  Mr.  Woolsey's 
opinion  is  correct,  it  is  a  mere  sectarian  Bible,  making 
the  word  of  God  speak  demonstrable  falsehood  ;  besides 
•  being  rejected  by  all  the  remainder  of  the  Protestant 
world. 

*  Such  is  the  effect  already  produced  in  no  small  measure  upon 
those  who  heed  these  representations  concerning  our  common 
English  Bible.  A  very  zealous  Baptist,  fresh  from  hearing  these 
representations,  came  to  me,  with  the  leaves  of  his  New  Testa- 
ment turned  down  in  dog's  ears,  arguing  that  there  is  no  re-bap- 
tism spoken  of  in  Acts  xix.  "  The  word  this,"  says  he,  u  in  the 
5th  verse,  is  in  the  past  tense."  What  word  in  the  past  tense  ? 
11  The  wordl&iff,'  in  the  5th  verse."  What,  a  pronoun  in  the  past 
tense?  "  Well,"  says  he,  "  therein  a  fault  in  the  translation,  and 
if  you  will  tell  me  honestly  how  it  is  in  the  Greek,  I  will  prove  to 
you  that  here  was  no  re-baptism."  Now  what  Bible  has  such  a 
man  for  any  thing  ?  The  Greek  :  alas  he  cannot  read  it.  The 
English  :  alas  hs  cannot  trust  it.  The  Baptist  minister  must  be 
his  Bible.  And  yet  how  common  it  is  to  hear  such  people  quote 
Greek  and  Hebrew,  and  talk  about  Nipto  and  Baptizo  and  Tdbalt 
with  as  much  assurance  as  if  they  had  a  divine  warrant  to  un- 
church and  excommunicate  every  minister  and  every  man  in 
Christendom  who  should  not  bow  to  their  decision  in  all  questions 
of  Biblical  criticism  and  philology,  touching  the  meaning  of  the 
word  Baptize. 


*' 


54  A   REFUTATION  OF 


DEFINING    THE    WORD    BAPTIZE. 

Mr.  Woolsey  says,  p.  62,  "  Pedobaptists  contend  that 
it  is  quite  impossible  to  define  the  word  baptize,  as  em- 
ployed by  John,  when  he  baptized  the  Savior  in  Jordan, 
and  as  used  by  our  Lord  himself  in  his  commission  to  his 
apostles."  He  intimates,  p.  63,  that  we  "bring  an  alle- 
gation against  the  Son  of  God,"  as  though  he  had  given  a 
commission  to  the  apostles  which  they  "did  not  under- 
stand." He  says,  p.  334,  "  If  we  may  be  allowed  to 
take  the  position  ASSUMED  BY  OUR  PEDOBAPTIST  BRETHREN, 
that  we  cannot  tell  what  meaning  to  attach  to  those  words 
in  the  revelation  of  God,  which  are  employed  to  teach  us 
Divine  institutions  and  important  doctrines,  where  shall 
we  stop  in  our  daring  course  of  rendering  ambiguous 
what  God  has  made  plain  ?" 

I  am  not  aware  that  any  Pedobaptist  has  ever  "  con- 
tended or  imagined  that  it  is  quite  impossible  to  define 
the  word  baptize,"  as  employed  by  John  and  our  Savior, 
So  far  as  my  information  extends,  it  is  not  true,  that  "  our 
Pedobaptist  brethren "  have  "  assumed  the  position  thai 
we  cannot  tell  what  meaning  to  attach  to  those  words  " 
baptize  and  baptism,  in  the  Word  of  God.  Mr.  Woolsey 
knows  full  well  that  we  have  been  ready  and  prompt  to 
define  baptism,  as  a  "  washing  "  in  the  sense  of  "  purify- 
ing ;"  a  ritual  purifying  by  some  manner  of  application 
of  water  ;  in  which  the  mode  of  the  application  is  a  mat- 
ter of  entire  indifference,  provided  it  be  done  decently 
and  reverently,  as  becomes  an  ordinance  of  God.*  As  to 


*  Thus,  MARTIN  LUTHER,  in  his  translation  of  the  Bible,  renders 
tfte  word  baptize,  in  Mark  vii.  4  and  Luke  xi.  38,  by  the  word 
wash.  Our  English  translators  have  done  the  same  ;  and  in  Heb, 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  55 

the  mode  of  applying  water  in  baptism,  Mr.  Woolsey 
knows  that  we  maintain  that  the  Word  of  God  is  neither 


ix.  10,  as  well  as  in  Mark  vii.  4,  they  have  rendered  the  word  bap- 
tisms by  the  word  washings. 

Says  OWEN  :  "  Baptism  is  any  kind  of  washing,  whether  by 
dipping  or  sprinkling." 

WALL  :  "  The  word  baptizo,  in  Scripture,  signifies  to  wash  in 
general,  without  determining  the  sense  to  this  or  that  sort  of 
washing  " 

FLAVEL:  "The  word  baptize  signifying  as  well  to  wash  as  to 
plunge  ;  a  person  may  be  truly  baptised  that  is  not  plunged." 

GLAS  :  u  Immersion  cannot  be  called  baptism,  any  otherwise 
than  as  it  is  a  mode  of  washing  with  water." 

DCEDERLEIN  :  "  The  power  of  the  word  baptizo  is  expressed 
(in  lavando,  abluendo)  in  washing,  or  performing  ablution ;  on  which 
account  we  read  of  the  baptism  of  cups,  in  Mark  vii.  8,  and  the 
rite  itself  is  called  (KaOapiarjo^  a  purifying,  in  John  iii.  25." 

DANJEUS  :  "  Baptism  signifies  not  only  immersion,  but  also 
lotion  and  ablution  ;  and  not  only  are  they  baptized  who  are  dipped 
in  water,  but  they  that  are  tinged  or  wetted  with  water." 

BEZA  :  "  They  are  rightly  baptized,  who  are  baptized  by  sprink- 
ling." 

CALVIN  :  "  Whether  the  person  be  wholly  immersed,  and  whether 
thrice  or  once,  or  whether  water  be  only  poured  or  sprinkled  upon 
him,  is  of  no  importance." 

WICKLIFFE  :  "  It  matters  not  whether  persons  are  dipped  once, 
or  three  times,  or  whether  water  were  poured  on  their  heads." 

LIGHTFOOT  :  *«  The  application  of  water  is  the  essence  of  bap- 
tism ,*  but  the  application  of  it  in  this  or  that  manner,  speaks  but  a 
circumstance." 

ROBINSON,  in  his  translation  of  WAUL,  according  to  the  plan  of 
his  lexicon,  gives  first  the  common  classic  meaning  of  the  word, 
**  submerge,  sink  :"  but  under  this  head  he  gives  not  a  solitary  example 
from  the  New  Testament.  He  then  adds,  "In  New  Test,  trans.,  1,  to 
wash,  to  perform  ablution,  cleanse ;  2,  to  baptize,  immerse,  administer 
the  rite  of  baptism." 

Whoever  wishes  to  see  authorities  like  these  cited  to  a  vast 
extent,  may  consult  POND  on  Baptism,  p.  23  and  onward  ; — from 
which  work  most  of  the  above  are  taken. 


66  A   REFUTATION   OF 

"  indefinite  "  nor  "  ambiguous,"  in  leaving  the  mode  un- 
defined.  Is  this  "assuming  the  position  that  we  cannot 
tell  what  meaning  to  attach  to  the  words!"  Is  this 
"  contending  that  it  is  quite  impossible  to  define  the  word 
baptize  V'  Is  the  meaning  of  the  command  to  baptize 
"indefinite  and  ambiguous"  because  the  word  baptize 
requires  only  a  ritual  application  of  water,  without  limit- 
ing the  application  to  any  one  mode  1  Let  us  test  this 
principle.  The  illustration  may  be  made  by  the  word  of 
Mr.  Woolsey's  own  choosing,  p.  6 1 :  "  Should,  for 
instance,  the  authorities  of  this  town  pass  an  ordinance 
that  every  citizen  should  PAVE  the  sidewalk  over  against 
his  own  house,"  Mr.  Woolsey  might  say,  "  this  means  to 
pave  with  BRICK,  and  most  deliberately  assure  us,"  p.  65,, 
that  no  doctrine  is  better  understood  or  more  explicitly 
"stated  than  the  doctrine"  of  paving.  He  might  declare 
how  much  those  who  pave  exclusively  with  brick  "  recoil 
at  such  a  sentiment "  as  "  brings  an  allegation  "  against  the 
authorities  of  the  town,  as  though  they  would  command 
us  to  pave,  and  leave  the  mode  of  paving  "  indefinite  and 
ambiguous."  In  reply,  we  would  answer:  But,  Mr. 
Woolsey,  the  authorities  of  the  town  require  us  to  pave, 
and  simply  to  pave.  Of  course  they  do  not  intend  to 
limit  us  to  any  one  mode  of  paving,  either  with  brick, 
wood,  or  stone,  and  perhaps  they  thought  it  very  important 
not  to  limit  us  to  any  one  mode.  We  might  refer  him  to 
legal  documents  of  the  same  town  authorities,  in  which 
they  speak  of  pavements,  which  either  are  not  brick  pave- 
ments, or  those  documents  speak  what,  even  on  Mr. 
Woolsey's  concession,  is  a  falsehood.  What  would  be 
thought  of  his  candor  or  his  logic,  if  he  should  reply,  (see 
p.  6 1  of  his  work,)  You  might  as  well  maintain  that  the 
import  of  the  statute  is  to  "  beautify  the  sidewalk,"  or  to 
"excavate  the  sidewalk,"  or  to  "make  a  subterraneous 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  57 

passage  under  it,"  after  the  example  of  the  celebrated  tun- 
nel under  the  Thames. 

TRANSLATING   THE    WORD   BAPTIZE. 

Our  English  translators  employed  the  words  baptize  and 
baptism,  which  had  been  for  ages  in  common  use,  to 
denote  the  ordinance,  and  which  had  become  vernacular 
in  the  English  tongue.  Of  Greek  origin  these  words  un- 
doubtedly were,  but  they  were  as  well  understood  as  the 
words  geography,  astronomy,  biography,  rhetoric,  grammar, 
and  history  are  now ;  which  are  as  truly  of  Greek  original, 
and  as  purely  Greek,  as  the  words  baptize  and  baptism. 
I  have  proved,  as  I  think,  with  regard  to  some  passages, 
that  immerse  could  not  have  been  the  sense  of  baptize, 
and  that  the  word  could  not  have  been  so  translated  con- 
sistently with  truth.  But  had  such  been  its  meaning,  the 
word  immerse  could  not  have  been  better  understood  than 
the  word  baptize.  Immerse  is  as  purely  Latin  as  baptize 
is  Greek.  Baptize  became  an  English  word  as  soon  as 
the  Gospel  was  preached  in  England : — and  our  Baptist 
brethren  contend  that  baptism  was  then  performed  by 
immersion.  Had  this  been  the  case,  and  had  the  old 
Britons  been  taught  to  consider  immersion  the  essence  of 
baptism,  the  word  baptism  in  their  language  would  have 
signified  immersion  ; — arid  the  Greek  word  baptizo  would 
have  as  truly  expressed  the  idea  as  the  Latin  word 
immerse.  At  all  events,  as  our  Baptist  brethren  claim 
that  the  Gospel  was  first  preached  in  Britain  by  immer- 
sers,  and  that  immersion  was  the  exclusive  mode  of  bap- 
tism till  near  the  time  our  translation  was  made,  they 
ought  for  very  shame  to  give  over  their  abuse  of  our  Eng- 
lish translators  as  though  they  had  transferred  the  word 
instead  of  translating  it.  Either  the  claims  of  our  Baptist 
brethren  are  idle  and  false,  or  the  transferring  was  done 
5* 


58  A   REFUTATION   OF 

by  immersers;  and  then  their  accusations  against  Pedo- 
baptists,  as  though  they  had  transferred  the  word  baptize 
for  the  purpose  of  "  concealing  its  true  import,"  are  idle 
and  false.  Our  Baptist  brethren  may  choose  which  horn 
of  the  dilemma  they  will:  either  their  claims  are  idle  and 
false,  or  their  accusations  are  idle  and  false.  The  word 
was,  indeed,  originally  transferred  into  our  language  :  but 
our  English  translators  did  not  make  the  transfer ;  they 
gave  a  proper  translation  —  employing  THE  VERY  word 
that  had  been  exclusively  employed  to  denote  the  ordi- 
nance, ever  since  the  day  that  the  Christian  religion  was 
first  planted  in  their  native  land.  "Baptize  was  then  as 
much  an  English  word  as  almost  any  word  in  the  English 
language,  most  of  the  words  having  been  as  much  derived 
from  a  foreign  source  as  the  word  baptize. 

But  neither  of  the  words  immerse,  sprinkle,  pour,  or 
any  other  word  that  relates  merely  to  the  mode  of  the  or- 
dinance could  express  the  idea  of  baptism.  Baptism  is  a 
sacred  rite,  of  peculiar  signification  and  design.  Whatever 
be  the  mode  of  performing  it,  such  a  mode  oi  applying 
water  may  be  a  very  familiar  thing  with  any  people  on 
earth.  Such  things  as  dipping,  immersing,  sprinkling  and 
pouring,  are  very  common  among  all  nations  wherever 
there  is  water  ;  and  of  course  every  language  must  have  a 
word  for  each  of  these  things.  But  certainly  it  will  not 
be  contended  that  all  heathen  nations  are  in  the  habit  of 
performing  such  a  thing  as  a  Christian  baptism,  in  the 
Christian  sense.  The  Baptists  do  not  consider  every  im- 
mersion a  baptism,  in  the  Christian  sense.  If  they  do, 
then,  so  far  as  baptism  is  concerned,  they  must  hold  com- 
munion with  every  man  who  accidentally  falls  overboard ; 
if  they  do  not,  then  they  do  not  consider  immersion  as 
equivalent  to  baptism ;  and  it  is  idle  to  pretend  that  the 
word  baptism  is  equivalent  to  the  word  immerse  ;  or  that 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  59 

immerse  is  an  adequate  or  faithful  translation  of  the  word 
baptize.  On  our  part  we  do  not  hold  every  man  baptized 
who  has  been  accidentally  sprinkled  in  a  shower.  We 
cannot  therefore  claim  that  the  word  baptize  is  equivalent 
to  the  word  sprinkle  :  and  do  not  consider  the  word  sprin- 
kle or  the  word  pour  as  a  proper  translation  of  the  word 
baptize.*  No  word  which  expresses  simply  a  MODE  of  ap- 
plying water  can  fill  up  the  idea  of  the  word  baptizo  :  and 
any  word  which  limits,  the  application  to  any  one  mode  is 
an  arrant  perversion  of  the  Scriptures :  which  expressly 
speak  of  baptism  under  two  modes,  sprinkling  and  pour- 
ing; and  refer  to  it  again  and  again  under  the  more 
general  idea  of  a  purifying,  or  a  washing.  The  mode  im- 


*  Our  Baptist  brethren  are  fond  of  making  a  representation  touch- 
ing this  matter  which  is  very  plausible  and  captivating  to  ignorant 
and  unreflecting  minds;  but  nothing  can  be  more  disingenuous  in 
the  estimation  of  those  who  understand  the  subject.  Thus  Mr. 
Woolsey,  p.  211,  endeavors  to  show  what c<  effort"  we  make  4<  to 
get  around  the  plain  instruction  of  the  apostle"  in  Rom.  vi.  4,  by 
insinuating  that  we  would  have  it  read, — or  take  ground  which  re- 
quire us  to  read — "  Buried  with  him  by  sprinkling."  The  Baptist 
Bible  Society  is  equally  disingenuous  and  injurious — not  only  with 
regard  to  us,  but  with  regard  to  the  truth  in  this  matter.  Thus,  in 
the  Appendix  to  the  Report  for  1840,  p.  52,  they  say,  "  If  a  Pedo. 
baptist  translator  conscientiously  believes  that  sprinkling  or 
pouring  is  th^  meaning  of  baptizo,  let  him  thus  render  the  word. 
The  reader  cannot  fail,  I  think,  to  see  the  fallacy  and  disingenuous- 
ness  of  such  an  argument,  and  such  a  mode  of  representing  Pedo- 
baptist  views.  Our  brethren  represent  us  as  holding — what — I 
think,  they  must  know — we  do  not  hold  ;  viz.  that  baptize  in  the 
New  Testament  signifies  a  mode  of  applying  water  ;  is  synonymous 
with  the  word  pprinkle  ;  and  can  be  adequately  and  truly  translat- 
ed by  the  term  sprinkle.  Assuming  that  we  maintain  this, — and 
so  representing  us, — they  endeavor  to  show  the  absurdity  of  such 
ground,  and  then, — "  covering  up  and  concealing"  our  real  views, — 
they  endeavor  to  **  transfer"  that  absurdity  to  our  account. 


60  A   REFUTATION   OF 

merse  is  the  very  one  which  finds  the  least  countenance 
in  the  word  of  God :  if  indeed,  there  is  any  unquestiona- 
ble authority  for  that  mode,  aside  from  its  being  one  of  the 
modes  of  washing  or  purifying. 

In  translating  the  word  baptize,  therefore,  we  must  have 
a  word  which  possesses  two  qualities  :  1st.  It  must  denote 
a  sacred  application  of  water  in  a  ritual  purifying :  2d.  It 
must  not  limit  the  application  to  any  one  mode.  To  wash 
or,  to  purify,  comes  nearer  the  true  idea,  than  either  of  the 
words,  sprinkle  or  immerse,  and  they  are  the  only  words 
which  can  be  employed  with  exclusive  reference  to  a 
mode  of  baptizing,  consistently  with  the  truth  of  the 
Bible.  Yet  neither  wash,  or  purify,  have  the  exact  and  full 
signification,  by  the  common  acceptation  of  these  terms.  To 
wash,  did  not  originally  in  our  language,  mean  a  ritual 
purification  ;  much  less  did  immerse  have  that  meaning , 
and,  to  purify,  does  not  in  the  common  use  of  our  language 
signify  necessarily  an  application  of  water.  "We  may  use 
them,  with  a  modification  of  their  common  meaning ;  and 
the  connection  will  show  in  what  sense  they  are  used. 
But  after  all,  when  the  new  idea  of  baptism  came  into  the 
minds  of  the  old  Britons,  they  needed  either  a  new  word, 
or  a  new  adaptation  of  an  old  word  to  express  that  idea. 
They  wanted  a  term  which  should  express  a  ritual  puri- 
fying by  some  manner  of  sacred  application  of  water : 
and  it  mattered  not  what  word  they  employed,  nor  from 
what  source  it  was  derived,  provided  they  might  agree 
respecting  what  word  should  express  the  idea.  To  illus- 
trate this, — in  the  South  Sea  Islands,  they  had  no  know- 
ledge of  such  a  thing  as  a  horse  ;  and  of  course,  no  word 
for  horse.  But  in  translating  the  Bible  for  them,  it  was  ne- 
cessary to  find  something  to  substitute  for  the  word  horse. 
The  animal  might  have  been  described  by  a  long  circum- 
locution, by  the  use  of  words  already  existing  in  their  Ian- 


*  *  • 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  61 

guage  ;  but  this  would  not  do  5  the  word  must  be  trans- 
lated. How  could  this  be  done ;  as  the  natives  had  no 
word  for  horse  ]  The  Missionaries  made  a  word  for  them. 
The  Greek  word  for  horse  is  Hippos  ;  and  by  leaving  oft' 
the  last  letter,  the  word  would  conform  in  shape  and 
sound  to  the  structure  of  native  words  much  better  than 
the  English  word  horse,  and  quite  as  well  as  any  other 
combination  of  sounds  that  might  be  invented.  So  the 
Missionaries  translated  the  word  horse  by  the  word  "  Hip- 
po."* But  this  word  would  need  explanation.  Grant  it. 
And  so  the  word  baptizo  has  to  be  explained  by  Baptist 
translators,  and  they  explain  it  to  mean,  — most  errone- 
ously as  we  believe, — immersion. 

^  -  •  / 

NO  NEW  THING  TO  TRANSFER  PECULIAR  WORDS  FROM  ONE 
LANGUAGE  TO  ANOTHER. 

THIS  transferring  of  words  from  one  language  to  anothei 
is  not  so  uncommon  a  process  as  many  of  our  brethren 
seem  to  suppose  it.  What  English  word  shall  be  substi- 
tuted for  the  Greek  word  c  Tetrarch"  in  Luke  iii.  1 1 
What  for  the  Greek  word  " Pentecost"  in  Acts  ii.  1 1 
What  for  the  Greek  words  "  Christ "  and  "  Christians  ?  " 
"  Christ "  signifies  anointed ;  and  so  does  the  Hebrew 
c< Messiah"  But  to  translate  the  word,  in  all  cases,  on 

*  The  Missionaries  at  the  Sandwich  Islands  found  the  Hawaiian 
language  so  copious  that  they  were  not  under  the  necessity  of  in- 
troducing  a  great  number  of  foreign  words  except  proper  names. 
"  We  have  however,"  say  they,  "  adopted  Ekalesia  for  churdh, 
bapetiso  for  baptize,  bapetiso  for  baptism,  Bapetite  for  Baptist, 
lepero  for  leper,  aeto  for  eagle,  alopeke  for  fox,  berena  for 
bread,  enemi  for  enemy,  himeni  for  hymn,  halelu  for  psalm,  and  a 
few  other  foreign  words,  most  of  which  are  well  established  and 
familiar  to  common  readers."  (Rep.  Am.  Bible  Society,  1837.) 
The  classical  and  Biblical  scholar  will  at  once  recognize  the  origin 
of  most  of  these  words. 


6£  A   REFUTATION   OF 

the  principle  contended  for  by  our  Baptist  brethren,  would 
confound  and  destroy  the  meaning  of  many  passages  of 
Scripture.  The  word  is  applied  by  way  of  eminence,  as 
an  APPELLATION,  to  the  promised  Redeemer.  In  Matt.  i. 
1,  18,  and  Mark  i,  as  often  elsewhere,  our  Lord  is  called, 
not  "Jesus  THE  Christ,"  but  "Jesus  Christ:'"  As  George 
Campbell  well  says,  (D.  V.  Part  4,)  "  Though  the  word 
Jlnointed  expresses  the  primitive  import  of  the  Hebrew 
name,  it  does  not  convey  the  idea  in  which  it  was  then 
universally  understood.  It  was  considered  solely  as  the 
well-known  title  of  an  extraordinary  office,  to  which  there 
was  nothing  similar  among  the  people."  That  the  word 
Christ  has  this  peculiar  meaning  when  applied  to  the  Sa- 
vior, may  be  seen  at  once,  by  applying  the  word,  in  its 
English  sense,  to  other  personages,  who  are  often  spoken 
of  by  the  same  original  words,  both  in  Hebrew  and  Greek- 
How  would  it  sound  to  hear  David  speaking  of  Saul,  as  in 
1  Sam.  xxiv.  6,  repeatedly  call  that  wicked  king  the 
"  Christ  of  the  Lord  1 "  How  would  it  sound  in  Isa.  xlv.  1, 
to  hear  the  Lord  speaking  to  Cyrus,  as  to  his  "  Christ  ?  " 
or,  in  Psalm  cv.,  "  Touch  not  my  Christ  1 "  Here  the 
sense  as  imperatively  demands  that  the  word  be  translated 
according  to  its  original  import,  as  other  passages  do, 
that  it  should  not  be  translated  but  transferred. 

I  suppose  it  would  be  lawful  to  talk  to  the  Hindoos,  or 
the  Burmans,  about  the  Jewish  "  Synagogues  ;  "  though 
that  too  is  a  word  of  Greek  origin.  If  any  heathen  have 
no  term  for  such  beings  as  devils,  I  suppose  it  would  be 
lawful  to  introduce  to  them  such  words  as  the  Greek  Dia- 
bolos,  or  the  English  word  Devil.  It  would  be  a  matter 
of  indifference  whether  you  introduce  to  them  our  Hebraic 
English  word  " Sabbath"  and  teach  them  its  meaning ;  or 
teach  them  how  to  use  one  of  their  own  old  words  with  a 
new  meaning.  The  vojume  of  God's  word  might  retain 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  63 

its  Greek-English  name  Bible,  or  it  might  be  turned  into 
the  words  vernacular  among  the  heathen,  for  "  writings," 
or  for  "  The  Book ;  "  only  teaching  them  to  give  a  new 
idea  to  their  common  words.     Such  words  as  "  Jubilee" 
"homer?  "ephah,"  "shekel,"  "  cherubim,"  might  be  trans- 
ferred, or  old  words  selected,  and  taught  to  bear  a  mean- 
ing not  originally  their  own,  as  should  be  found  most  con- 
venient.    A  scholar,  dealing. in  profane  literature  only,  in 
translating  from  the  ancient  Greek  writers,  or  from  Cicero 
or  Tacitus,  might  find  himself  compelled,  either  to  give 
erroneous  ideas,  or  to  transfer  into  Burmese,  or  Japanese, 
such  words  as  "  Jirchon"  "  Consul,"  "  Prater"  QuestorJ* 
"Censor,"  "Senator,"  "Dictator,"  "Tribune."    "Who," 
says  Campbell,  "  considers  these  names "  (as  transferred 
into  our  language)  "  as  barbarous  1 "  "  To  have  employed, 
instead  of  them,  ( JlldermanJ  4  Sheriff J  &c.  we  should 
have  justly  thought  much  more  exceptionable."     "  I  have 
heard,"  says  he,  -"  of  a  Dutch  translator  of  Caesar's  Com- 
mentaries, who  always  rendered  consul,  burgomaster /  and 
in  the  same  taste,  all  the  other  officers  and  magistrates  of 
Rome."  How  could  we  have  translated  the  Latin  classics, 
and  given  the  true  idea,  unless  we  had  naturalized,  in  such 
cases,  the  very  Latin  words,  and  learned  the  ideas  and  the 
names  together  1     Where  would  have  been  our  English 
ideas  of  such  a  thing  as  a  "  libation"  an  "  ova/ion"  a 
"  lustration,"  had  we  not  imported,  not  only  the  names, 
but  the  very  ideas,  from  the  language  and  customs  of  hea- 
thenism 1     Whence  comes  our  English  word  "  triumph  1 " 
Whence  come  the  now  English  words, "  Sultan,"  "Pacha,' 
"  Khan,"  "  Bey  ?. "  What  limit  is  there  to  the  transferring 
of  the  very  words  of  the  people  who  bring  us  new  things 
and  new  ideas  1     Look  at  our  military  terms :  almost  all 
adopted  and  transferred  from  the  French.     Look  at  our 
terms  of  chimistry,  botany,  and  zoology :  how  many  of 
them  have  been  recently  compounded  from  the  Greek. 


64  A  REFUTATION   OF 

Now,  unless  Baptism  is  already  in  use  among  the  hea- 
thens, as  a  RELIGIOUS  PURIFICATION,  and  expressed  by  a  word 
of  their  own,  having  this  precise  idea,  in  distinction  from 
the  idea  of  any  simple  mode  of  administering  water,  or  at 
least  in  addition  to  such  an  idea  of  mode,  it  must  be  as  in- 
adequate and  inaccurate  a  translation  which  shall  use  an 
old  word  of  theirs,  referring  simply  to  the  mode  of  apply- 
ing water,  as  it  would  be  to  turn  the  Roman  "  Consul " 
into  a  Dutch  "  Burgomaster"  The  translation  is  inade- 
quate ;  it  is  incorrect;  it  misleads;  and  that  aside  from 
the  consideration  that  to  translate  Baptize,  immerse,  makes 
the  Bible  speak  falsehood,  even  with  regard  to  the  mere 
mode.  You  may  transfer  the  word  Baptize ;  you  may 
call  Baptism,  in  Siamese,  (as  the  Baptist  Bible  SQciety  say 
our  missionaries  have  done,)  "  Bapteetsamay," — conform- 
ing the  shape  of  the  word  to  the  genius  of  the  language,  as 
in  the  Latin  Baptizare,  and  the  English  Baptize  ;  and  it 
is  correct.  It  is  as  easy  to  teach  them  the  new  word  as  it 
is  to  teach  them  the  new  idea — the  positive  and  peculiar 
Scripture  idea  of  Baptize.  Or  you  may  translate  baptize 
into  a  word  signifying  to  WASH  ;  still  better,  if  you  can  find 
a  word  which  signifies  a  ritual  purifying  by  washing ; 
and  you  have  given  a  most  faithful  translation.  But  to 
translate  the  word  by  the  word  immerse,  is  to  give  an  ina- 
dequate, inaccurate,  and,  as  we  contend,  a  false  idea. 

TO  TRANSFER  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE  INTO  FOREIGN  LANGUAGES 
NEITHER  TEACHES  ERROR  NOR  CONCEALS  THE  TRUTH. 

By  substituting  the  word  immerse  for  the  word  baptize, 
our  Baptist  brethren,  as  we  think,  have  added  to  the  com- 
mand of  Christ,  and  corrupted  the  word  of  God.  Our 
missionaries  to  the  people  of  the  same  languages  cannot 
consistently  circulate  such  bibles,  nor  use  them  in  their 
schools  or  churches.  To  transfer  the  word  baptize,  or  to 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  65 

render  it  by  the  word  "  wash,"  is  not  to  teach  the  heathen 
that  baptism  is  to  be  performed  by  sprinkling,  or  by  pour- 
ing, more  than  it  is  to  teach  them  that  baptism  is  to  be 
performed  by  immersing.  I  know  our  Baptist  brethren 
insist,  that  so  to  transfer  the  word  is  to  "propagate  the 
peculiar  sentiments"  of  Pedobaptists,  and  to  "  diffuse  the 
opinions  of "  the  Pedobaptist  "party."*  This, cannot  be 
so,  unless  the  word  baptize  is  so  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  to  lead  people  every  where,  who  are  not  other- 
wise instructed,  to  conclude  that,  according  to  the  word  of 
God,  immersion  is  not  essential  to  baptism.  Our  Baptist 
brethren  either  know  this  to  be  so,  and  therefore  feel  it 
all-important  to  their  cause  to  cover  up  and  conceal  the 
obvious  Scriptural  meaning  of  baptize  ;  or  they  know  the 
allegation  to  be  false,  that  such  transferring  of  the  word  is 
to  make  a  "  sectarian  Bible,"  and  to  "  diffuse  the  opinions" 
of  Pedobaptists.  If  this  be  not  so,  then  for  our  Baptist 
brethren  to  transfer  the  word  baptize,  is  neither  to  give  up 
their  principles  nor  to  conceal  them ; — nor  is  such  a 
transfer  giving  any  advantage  to  Pedobaptists  more  than 
to  Baptists.  But  our  Baptist  brethren  maintain,  that 
consenting  to  circulate  versions  in  which  the  word  is 
transferred  is  to  become  the  "  unconscious  instruments  of 
diffusing  the  opinions  of  a  party,"*  to  wit — of  the  Pedo- 
baptist party.  The  plain  English,  and  the  true  logic  of 
this,  is,  that  if  you  leave  people  to  judge  of  the  meaning 
of  baptize  from  its  use  in  the  word  of  God,  you  make 
Pedobaptists  of  them ;  and  that,  if  you  thus  leave  the 
word  of  God  to  interpret  itself,  it  will  make  Pedobaptists, 
even  when  given  by  Baptist  hands  and  accompanied  by 
Baptist  instructions.  Either  this  is  the  true  reason  for 


*  Report  Baptist  Bible  Society,  1840,  p.  45. '  ' 

*  Baptist  Bible  Society  Report,  1840,  p.  45. 

6 


66  A   REFUTATION    OF 

this  earnest  stickling  for  substituting  the  word  immerse, 
instead  of  the  word  baptize,  or  these  charges  of  "  cover- 
ing up  the  word  of  God,"  "  suppressing  the  true  mean- 
ing of  baptize,"  and  "  diffusing  the  opinions  of  a  party," 
are  idle  as  the  whistling  wind,  and  confessedly  false. 
"Diffusing  the  opinions  of  a  party  !"  What  do  our 
brethren  mean  1  What  is  it  to  substitute  the  word  im- 
merse for  the  word  baptize  1  Is  not  this  "  to  diffuse  the 
opinions  of  a  party  ?"  Is  it  not  to  set  themselves  up  to 
judge  over  seven-eighths  of  the  Protestant  world  1  Ifc  it 
not  to  treat  all  other  Protestants  as  "  a  party"  and  to  arro- 
gate to  themselves  the  catholicity  and  infallibility  claimed 
by  the  Papal  Beast  1  "  Diffuse  the  opinions  of  a  party !" 
Yet  not  many  years  have  elapsed  since  our  Baptist  breth- 
ren joined  with  us,  heart  and  hand,  in  putting  just  such  a 
version — with  the  word  baptize  transferred — into  every 
family  in  the  land.  They  use  the  same  version  in  their 
families  and  in  their  churches.  The  great  mass  of  them 
seem  content  that  such  a  version  shall  be  perpetuated  and 
diffused  throughout  the  world,  wherever  the  English  lan- 
guage shall  be  spoken,  to  the  end  of  time.  I  think  I 
have  shown  that  they  will  never  be  able  to  agree  upon  a 
different  version  in  English, — a  version  to  be  made  upon 
the  principles  of  the  Baptist  Bible  glossary,  and  on  which 
they  make  their  foreign  translations, — by  faithfully  substi- 
tuting the  word  immerse  for  the  word  baptize, — without 
entering  into  a  compromise,  in  which  half  of  their  de- 
nomination shall  allow  the  Bible  to  speak  what  they  admit 
to  be  falsehood,  or  the  other  half  yield  to  the  first  party 
in  doing  what  they  themselves  consider  as  corrupting  and 
altering  the  sacred  text  of  the  word  of  God.  Our  Eng- 
lish version  the  Baptists,  as  a  body,  consider  good  enough 
for  us, — for  themselves,  and  for  their  children.  They  are 
willing  to  have  it  perpetuated  to  the  end  of  time,  as  the 


BAPTIST  ERRORS. 


67 


Bible  of  the  English  language  ;  the  language  destined, 
ere  long,  to  be  spoken  by  more  millions  than  ever  have 
agreed  in  speaking  one  language  since  the  world  began. 
Even  the  Baptist  Bible  Society  content  themselves  by 
prefixing,  to  the  copies  which  they  print,  that  glossary 
whose  absurdities  I  have  had  occasion  to  expose.  But  so 
agreeing  to  use  our  common  English  version,  in  which 
the  word  baptize  is  transferred,  can  they  have  in  reality 
any  scruples  of  conscience  against  circulating  a  similar 
version  among  the  heathen  1  Have  they,  tjien,  one  con- 
science for  themselves  and  their  children,  and  another  for 
the  heathen  I  * — one  conscience  for  people  who  speak 
English,  and  another  conscience  for  those  who  speak  the 
Burman  language,  or  the  Bengali  1  Will  they  condemn 
a  version  with  the  word  transferred  into  a  foreign  tongue, 
and  yet  circulate  such  a  version  among  their  own  country- 
men, hand  it  down  to  posterity,  and  perpetuate  it  to  the  end 
of  time  1  Why  so  much  better  care  of  the  heathen  than  of 
their  brethren  and  children  1  Have  they  men  abroad  who 
can  make  a  true  translation ;  and  have  they  none  at  home 
who  can  do  the  same  1  Are  their  means  most  abundant 
abroad  1  Will  the  press  strike  deep  upon  the  word  im- 
merse in  a  foreign  tongue,  and  refuse  to  strike  the  same 
word  immerse  amid  the  very  dwellings  of  the  Baptist 
name  1  But  it  may  be  said  that  here  their  preachers  can 


*  "  The  Rev.  Joseph  Hughes,  a  Baptist,  and  long  Secretary  of 
the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  had  no  scruple  against 
transferring  baptize ;  nor  has  the  Rev.  Mr.  Sutton,  now  a  Baptist 
missionary  in  India.  Two  able  pamphlets,  by  Baptists  in  England, 
have  just  been  published  in  favor  of  such  a  course.  The  Chippewa 
New  Testament,  by  Dr.  James,  a  Baptist,  and  printed  in  1833  at 
Albany,  has  the  word  baptize  transferred  /" — [Statement  of  Man- 
agers of  American  Bible  Society,  Feb.  1841.] 


68  A   REFUTATION   OF 

correct  the  errors  of  the  Bible  which  they  use  : — that  their 
practice  and  their  instructions  will  teach  their  children 
and  the  world  that  by  baptize  they  mean  immerse.  Will 
not  the  instructions  of  their  missionaries,  and  their  practice 
teach  the  heathen,  in  the  same  manner,  that  by  baptize 
they  mean  immerse  1 

I  confess,  I  am  not  able  to  see  any  reason  for  insisting 
upon  using  the  word  immerse  in  foreign  lands  which  is 
not  equally  valid  for  insisting  upon  using  the  same  at  home, 
To  their  own  missionaries  and  their  converts,  it  cannot 
make  the  least  difference  whether  they  use  the  word  im- 
merse or  the  word  baptize.  The  heathen  will  be  taught 
as  soon,  as  surely,  and  as  thoroughly,  to  consider  baptize 
as -equivalent  to  immerse.  They  will  learn  this — as  soon 
as  they  learn  any  thing  about  baptism.  The  idea  of  immer- 
sion will  be  inwrought  into  their  very  natures,  and  become 
inseparable  from  the  word  baptize.  As  far  as  Baptist  la- 
bors and  instructions  go,  therefore,  it  can  make  no  manner 
of  difference  whether  they  use  the  word  baptize  or  the 
word  immerse  in  their  foreign  versions —unless  indeed,  as 
I  have  said,  the  word  baptize  is  so  used  in  the  Scripture 
as  to  lead  every  man  who  learns  its  meaning  from  its  use 
in  the  word  of  God,  naturally  and  inevitably  to  conclude 
that  the  word  does  not  in  the  New  Testament  mean  im- 
merse. Unless  this  be  so,  it  can  make  no  manner  of  dif- 
ference to  them  who  receive  the  Bible  from  Baptist  hands, 
whether  the  word  is  rendered  immerse  or  baptize.  But  to 
others  it  does  make  a  difference.  In  their  view,  to  render 
the  word  immerse  is  ,to  add  to  the  command  of  Christ  and 
to  corrupt  the  word  of  God.  If  I  follow  out  to  the  just 
conclusion  the  argument  from  these  considerations  which 
seem  to  me  just,  I  should  be  compelled  to  conclude  that 
the  true  reason  why  our  Baptist  brethren  insist  upon  hav- 
ing the  word  immerse  in  their  foreign  versions,  while  they 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  O^ 

retain  the  word  baptize  in  their  own, — is  no  matter  of 
conscience, — since  conscience  should  do  that  for  them- 
selves and  their  children,  which  conscience  requires  them 
to  do  for  the  heathen : — but  it  is  a  design  to  do,  what  they 
have   charged   upon  us, — to    "  diffuse  the  opinions  of  a 
party :" — to  make  a  version  which  no  other  denomination 
can  use,  without  giving  up  the  whole  controversy  ;  surren- 
dering their  own  judgment :  allow  the  Baptists  to  be  infalli- 
ble, and  help  circulate  their  peculiar  conceits  as  the  un- 
adulterated word  of  God.     I  say,  were  I  to  follow,  where 
facts  and  logic  lead,  I  should  be  obliged  to  come  to  the 
conclusion,  that  this  is  the  design  of  our  Baptist  brethren. 
But  1  will  not  impute  to  them  the  design  of  doing  what 
they  virtually  propose  to  do.     I  am  willing  to  believe  that 
their  intentions  are  better  than  their  actual  course.     But 
granting  this ;  believing  it ;  allowing  them  to  be  sincere  and 
conscientious ;  we   cannot  nevertheless    submit  to  have 
every  thing  imposed  on  us  which  others  may  be  sincere 
and  conscientious  in  imposing.     We  say,  kindly, — but  we 
say  it  firmly, — brethren,  you  are  not  infallible.     We  can- 
not join  with  you  in  circulating  a  Bible,  which  is  designed- 
ly so  rendered  as  to  condemn  what  we  solemnly  and  fully 
believe  to  be  the  truth  of  God.     We  cannot  join  in  circu- 
lating among  our  schools  and  churches  in  heathen  lands,  a 
Bible  which  is  made  to  speak  the  peculiar  Baptist  notions, 
at  the  sacrifice  of  what  nine-tenths  of  the  Protestant  world 
believe  to  be  the  truth  of  God.     You  agree  that  you  and 
your  children  shall  use,  in  common  with  us  and  our  chil- 
dren, a  version  in  which  the  controversy  between  us  is  not 
violently  wrested  and  determined  according  to  the  notions 
of  one  party  to  the  condemnation  of  all  others : — a  version 
which  is  not  sectarian :  a  version  which  leaves  the  ques- 
tion between  us  open,  as  it  must  be  left,  till  one  party  shall 
claim  infallibility,  and  the  other  submit  to  such  a  claim, 


70  A   REFUTATION   OF 

!*     **  v 

and  give  up  to  that  infallibility  their  own  judgment  and 
their  own  conscience.  If  you  say  that  such  a  version 
leaves  the  Bible  open  to  human  explanations  ;  we  reply, 
that  to  make  the  Bible  speak  exclusive  immersion  is  a 
mere  human  explanation,  the  explanation  only  of  a  sect 
— a  little  party  in  comparison  with  the  whole  ; — an  expla- 
nation which  we  deem  greatly  erroneous.  Is  it  not  enough 
for  you  to  make  your  explanations  of  the  Bible  ;  must  you 
make  Bible  of  your  explanations ;  and  demand  that  this 
prerogative  be  granted  exclusively  to  yourselves!  No, 
brethren : — having  rejected  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope  we 
shall  not  deem  it  faithfulness  either  to  freedom  or  to  the 
truth  to  concede  infallibility  to  you.  Nor  do  we  claim  it 
for  ourselves.  On  equal  terms  we  will  meet  you — and  be 
brethren  in  the  dearest  bonds.  Although  you  unchurch 
us,  shut  us  away  from  the  Lord's  table  because  we  do  not 
follow  the  truth  as  you  understand  it  rather  than  as  we  un- 
derstand it,  and  be  guided  by  your  conscience  rather  than 
by  our  own  ; — notwithstanding  all  this,  we  are  ready  to 
meet  you  in  the  work  of  circulating  the  word  of  God. 
Only  require  us  not  to  add  to  the  command  of  Christ. 
Translate  that  word  baptize  so  that  we  can  circulate  the 
Bible  as  well  as  you  ; — leave  this  disputed  question  as  it  is 
left  in  the  Bible  which  you  and  we  use  in  common,  and 
deem  it  good  enough  for  ourselves  and  for  our  children; — 
and  with  all  our  souls  we  will  aid  you  ;  nay,  do  as  we  have 
ever  done,— for  every  dollar  paid  into  our  common  trea- 
sury by  your  denomination  for  circulating  the  Bible  in 
foreign  lands, — pay  to  your  missionaries  and  agents  for 
conducting  the  distribution  on  your  part — two.* 

*  Such  is  the  fact.  Our  Baptist  brethren  have  sounded  the 
trumpet  loud  and  long  ahout  their  being  •*  turned"  off  from  the 
American  Bible  Society,  destitute,  while  its  funds  **  were  full  and 


**tt 

BAPTIST   ERRORS.  /I 


MARTIN 


Mr.  Woolsey  says,  p.  74,  "  Luther,  one  of  the  great 
reformers,  gave  the  Bible  translated  to  the  Germans,  that 


overflowing."  "  Yes,  sir,"  said  Professor  Eaton  in  his  speech  be- 
fore the  Baptist  Bible  Society,  [Rep.  Ann.  For.  Bib.  Soc.,  1840, 
p.  77.]  °  Yes,  Sir,  they  withhold  from  us  the  funds  which  we  in 
the  confiding  simplicity  of  our  hearts  poured  into  the  common 
treasury  foe  the  spread  of  the  pure  light  of  heaven  over  this  dark 
world."  ' ««  No  faith  is  preserved  with  the  poor  Baptists."  Charges 
are  made  by. the  Baptists, — and  circulated  and  urged  with  every 
possible  appeal  to  prejudice  and  to  sympathy,  that  the  '*  American 
Bible  Society  has  received  a  large  amount  of  money  from  Baptists," 
(some  say  forty,  fifty,  eighty,  and  even  one  hundred  and  seventy 
thousand  dollars,)  a  large  share  of  which  has  never  been  appro- 
priated to  their  use  ;  which  is  still  due  to  the  Baptists,  and  which 
the  American  Bible  Society  refuses  to  refund.  The  Board  of 
Managers  of  the  American  Bible  Society,  have  recently  made  an 
examination  of  this  matter.  In  their  "  Statement"  recently  pub- 
lished, they  say  *c  the  aggregate  of  legacies  received  from  Baptists, 
30  far  as  known  to  the  Board,  is  no  more  than  $18,000."  These 
were  received  in  the  years  1830  and  1831, — «*  the  very  years  when 
the  managers  were  endeavoring  to  supply  the  entire  United  States 
with  the  Bible,  and  which  funds"  [the  legacies]  •'  were  wholly  ex. 
pended  in  that  enterprise.  Yes,  they  were  all  used  in  preparing 
and  circulating  English,  German,  and  French  Bibles  for  the  good 
of  our  common  country ;  and  a  large  debt  remained  after  they 
were  expended.  On  looking  over  their  books,  the  managers  of 
the  American  Bible  Society  find  "  in  relation  to  Life  Directors, 
that  out  of  a  list  of  more  than  400  belonging  to  the  society,  only  13 
were  of  the  Baptist  denomination."  Of  these  thirteen,  two  were 
constituted  directors  on  account  of  having  been  members  of  the 
convention  which  formed  the  society.  Two  others  were  made 
directors  by  contributions  furnished  by  men  of  other  denominations^ 
and  one  of  the  remainder  is  still  a  friend  of  the  American  Bible 
Society.*'  [Leaving  only  four  Baptist  Directorships  to  be'  other- 
wise accounted  for.  "  In  relation  to  Life  Members,"  on  a  *'  list  of 


72  A  REFUTATION   OF 

they  might  read  in  their  own  language  the  wonderful 
works  of  God  ;  and  he  rendered  baptize  into  a  word  sig- 
nifying to  immerse."  Again  he  says,  p.  138,  "  or  as  Lu- 
ther, the  great  reformer,  renders  it  in  his  German  Testa- 
ment," Johannes  der  Taufer, — "  John  the  Dipper." 

So  the  Baptist  Bible  Society  in  their  report  for  1840 
p.  89,  say,  "  Other  translators  may  do  as  they  please  ;  Bap- 
tize may  be  twisted  into  all  sorts  of  meanings  except  im? 
mersion— unless  indeed  in  the  case  of  old  versions.  Lu- 
ther may  say  that  it  means  to  immerse,  and  his  version 
shall  continue  to  be  circulated ;  but  woe  be  to  the  Bap- 
tists if  they  say  so  ;  and  what  is  the  reason  1" 

Mr.  Woolsey  compliments  Luther,  as  "  this  bold  de- 
fender of  the  inalienable  right  of  every  man  to  become 
personally  acquainted  with  the  truths  of  the  Bible  FAITH- 
FULLY TRANSLATED  into  his  own  vernacular  tongue." 


more  than  4000  names,  not  more  than  100"  can  be  identified  as 
Baptists. 

On  the  list  of  120  citizens  in  New  York,  who  aided  in  the  erec- 
tion of  the  Society's  house,  at  an  expense  of  more  than  22,000  dollars, 
the  managers  find  subscriptions  from  almost  every  other  denomina- 
tion, «*  but  they  find  but  one,  belonging  to  that  from  which  these 
charges  now  come."  The  managers  finally  conclude,  that  *'  aside 
from  the  $18,000  legacies,  [used  at  home  and  not  to  be  counted] 
there  is  no  evidence  of  their  having  contributed  to  the  treasury 
ONE  HALF  the  amount  which  they  have  received  from  it." 

We  shall  now  see  whether  Mr.  Maclay,  Mr.  Woolsey,  the  Bap- 
tist  Bible  Society,  and  their  denominational  prints  will  be  as  faith- 
ful  to  circulate  this  full  and  undeniable  refutation  of  these  unjust 
charges,  as  they  were  to  fabricate  and  circulate  the  charges  them- 
selves^ It  will  be  a  matter  that  will  give  some  insight  into  the 
regard  for  the  truth  entertained  by  those  who  conduct  the  Baptist 
press — to  observe  how  far  the  facts  in  this  case  shall  ever  be  spread 
before  the  Baptist  community  :  and  how  full  and  ingenuous  shall 
be  the  confessions  which  those  who  have  so  industriously  propagated 
these  slanders  against  the  American  Bible  Society  will  make. 


BAPTIST   ERRORS. 


73 


We  all  agree  with  Mr.  Woolsey  in  venerating  the 
courage,  the  honesty,  and  the  piety  of  Martin  Luther. 
But  is  Mr.  Woolsey  ignorant  that  the  Germans  and  all 
Lutherans  who  use  his  translation  baptize  by  sprinkling, 
as  Luther  practised  and  as  Luther  taught  them  1  When 
a  German  minister  takes  water  in  his  hand  and  sprinkles 
or  pours  it  on  the  person  baptized,  saying,  "  ICH  TAUFE 
DICH,"  does  he  mean,  /  immerse  you  ?"  Do  the  people 
so  understand  him  1  Most  certainly  not.  When  Martin 
Luther  took  water  in  his  hand  and  poured  or  sprinkled  it 
on  the  head  of  a  person,  saying,  " Ich  TAUFE  dich"  did 
he  mean,  "  1  immerse  you  V  Would  the  people  so  un- 
derstand himl  It  is  impossible.  Luther  could  never 
have  used  that  word  in  connection  with  such  an  action, 
had  it  in  his  day  been  equivalent  to  immerse.  The  words 
Taufen  and  Taufer,  which  Mr.  Woolsey  and  the  Baptist 
Bible  Society  translate  "  immerse"  and  "  dipper,"  mean 
no  such  thing.  They  are  used  in  German  with  specific 
and  exclusive  reference  to  the  rite  of  baptism  :  which  the 
Germans  perform  by  sprinkling  or  affusion. 

Thus,  the  English  and  German  Dictionary  by  F.  Jl. 
Weber ,   of  acknowledged  and   unquestionable   authority, 
gives  the  following  definitions  of  the  words  in  question.    I 
copy  from  the  Leipzic  Edition  of  1833,  by  Tauchnitz. 
"  Taufe,  baptism,  christening. 

Taufen^  to  baptize,  to  christen. 

Taufer,  baptizer,  baptist. 

Taufling,  person  baptized. 

Taufname,  Christian  name. 

Taufclein,  certificate  from  the  church  register." 

The  same  Dictionary  gives  the  following  German  words 
for  the  English  words,  immerge,  immerse,  arid  immersion. 
It  will  be  seen  that  Taufen  is  not  among  them. 

"  Immerge^  eiutauchen,  versunken,  vertieferi. 


74  A   REFUTATION   OF 

Immerse,  eintaucheri,  untertauchen,  vertiefen. 

Immersion,  untertauchung,  versunkung." 

BURCKHARDT,  in  his  German  and  English  Lexicon  (ed. 
Berlin,  1823),  gives  the  same  definitions,  both  in  the  Eng- 
lish and  in  the  German. 

From  this  it  is  manifest,  that  whatever  might  have  been 
the  etymology  of  the  words  Taufen  and  Taufer,  they  do 
not  in  German  mean  immerse  or  immerser.  To  give  a 
German  an  idea  of  immersion  you  must  use  other  words, 
different  both  in  their  origin,  their  meaning,  and  their 
form.* 

The  world  will  doubtless  concur  with  Mr.  Woolsey  in 
his  encomium  upon  Luther  as  "  This  bold  defender  of  the 


*  "  It  is  probable,"  says  Kurtz,  (himself  a  distinguished  Luther- 
an,) ««  that  at  an  early  period  in  the  reformation  Luther  inclined  to 
the  opinion  that  infants  should  be  '  pretty  well  dipped,'  but  at  no 
time  did  he  consider  such  dipping  essential."  "  His  apparent  ori- 
ginal preference  (it  was  a  mere  preference,)  of  dipping  was  soon 
abandoned  ;  and,  as  he  grew  older,  he  settled  down  into  the  same 
opinion  that  is  now  entertained  by  the  great  body  of  Lutheran  di- 
vines in  the  United  States."  Dr.  Kurtz  refers  to  the  statement 
of  Baptists,  that  "  Luther  himself,  the  great  reformer,  condemned 
the  practice  of  sprinkling,  and  even  disapproved  of  infant  baptism." 
Upon  this  Dr.  Kurtz  remarks,  ''  That  any  one  not  utterly  re- 
gardless of  his  reputation,  should  hazard  an  assertion  so  entirely 
unfounded,  is  matter  of  as  much  regret  as  it  is  surprise  ;  for  Lu- 
ther's writings,  throughout,  abound  with  the  most  conclusive  evi- 
dence in  support  of  infant  baptism,  as  well  of  his  conviction  of  the 
propriety  and  validity  of  its  performance  by  affusion  ;  even  his  hos- 
tility to  the  abuses  of  papacy  is  not  susceptible  of  clearer  or  strong- 
er proof."  Dr.  Kurtz  then  quotes  numerous  passages  in  which 
Luther  speaks  of  *'  dipping  a  child  in  water,  or  sprinkling  it  with 
water,  according  to  the  command  of  Christ."  <{  Inasmuch  as 
there  is  neither  ornament  or  honor  at  baptism,  and  God  does  out- 
wardly no  more  than  apply  a  HANDFUL  OF  WATER.'*  (<  Adminis- 
tering it  ('baptism,')  by  sprinkling  water  upon  the  subject,  in 
connection  with  the  words  prescribed  by  God." 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  75 

inalienable  right  of  every  man,"  to  have  the  Bible  "  faith- 
fully translated  into  his  vernacular  tongue."  Doubtless 
Luther  meant  to  give  "  the  Bible  translated  to  the  Ger- 
mans, that  they  might  read  in  their  owii  language,  the 
wonderful  works  of  God."  But  the  reader  may  judge 
whether  Mr.  Woolsey  would  not  have  spared  his  encomi- 
um upon  Luther,  had  he  not,  in  talking  about  Luther's 
translation,  undertaken  to  talk  about  a  matter  concerning 
which  he  was  not  well  informed.  Because  our  English 
translators  render  the  word  Baptize  by  the  word  wash  in 
Mark,  vii.  4«,  and  Luke  xi.  38,  Mr.  Woolsey  declares 
that  they  have  been  guilty  of  a  "  glaring  perverson  of  this 
Scripture,  by  suppressing  the  word  baptize,  and  substitut- 
ing the  word  wash"  p.  152.  He  contends,  p.  153,  that 
"the  translators  of  our  English  Bible,  for  the  sake  of  sup- 
pressing the  true  import  of  the  words  baptize  and  bap- 
tism," "  have  not  only  concealed"  the  "  instructions  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  but  "represented  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
using  the  most  stupid  tautology."  But  how  does  that 
"great  reformer,"  and  "bold  defender,"  translate  these 
passages  1  Mr.  Woolsey  declares  that  he  has  given  to  the 
Germans  a  Bible  translated.  How  does  Luther  translate 
these  passages  1  He  translates  them  by  the  word  "  WASH," 
the  pure  old  Saxon  word,  the  identical  mother  of  our  good 
old  English  word  wash."  "  Und  wenn  sie  vom  Markte 
kommen,  essen  sienicht^  sie  WASCHEN  SICH  dernij" — they 
WASH  THEMSELVES.  So  in  Luke,  xi.  38.  "  Da  das  der 
Pharisaer  sah,  verwunderte  er  sich,  dass  er  sich  nicht 
vor  dem  essen  GE WASCHEN  HATTE," — that  he  had  not 
WASHED  himself." 

THE  PESHITO-SYRIAC  VERSION. 

Mr.    Woolsey    affirms,  p.    71,   that   "  the   venerable 
Peshito-Syriac  version,"  which  he  thinks  was  "  evidently 


76  A  REFUTATION  OF 

executed  by  the  last  of  the  first  century,"  has  baptize 
translated  by  immerse. 

If  this  were  so,  I  think  we  have  shown  from  higher 
authority,  even  from  the  Scriptures  themselves,  that  such 
a  translation  is  wrong.  The  testimony  of  Evangelists  and 
Apostles  is  as  good  against  the  mere  opinion  of  all  trans- 
lators, as  it  is  against  testimony  adduced  from  the  heathen 
Greeks. 

But  will  Mr.  Woolsey  admit  this  translation  to  be  good 
authority  on  the  subject  of  baptism  1  Will  Mr.  Woolsey, 
after  affirming,  p.  252,  that  "  not  a  word  is  said  about  in- 
fant baptism"  "  till  the  third  century  ;"  will  he,  after  all 
that  he  has  said  about  "  Mistress  Lydia,"  p.  305,  and  its 
being  "  quite  certain  that  she  was  a  maiden  lady,"  p.  306  ; 
will  Mr.  Woolsey,  after  this,  admit  the  "  venerable  Peshito- 
Syriac  version,"  this  "  Protoplastic  version,"  "the  very  best 
that  -has  ever  been  made"  as  good  authority  on  the  subject 
of  baptism  ?  This  Syriac  version  reads,  that  "  when  she 
(Lydia)  was  baptized  WITH  HER  CHILDREN."*  Will  Mr. 
Woolsey,  after  affirming  that  this  version  was  made  by  the 
last  of  the  first  century,  and  maintaining  that  it  "  cannot  be 
determined"  whether  it  "  be  the  work  of  an  inspired  apostle 
or  not,"  will  he  now  admit  that  he  is  wrong  in  declaring  so 
positively  that  there  is  no  where  any  mention  of  infant 
baptism  till  the  third  century  1  Will  he  admit,  that  he, 
and  all  the  Baptists  are  wrong  in  denying  that  infant  bap- 
tism existed  before  the  close  of  the  second  century ;  and 
acknowledge  that  the  practice  can  be  traced  clearly  and 
indubitably  to  the  apostles  : — or  will  he  forever  after  be 
silent  about  the  •"  immersion"  of  the  "  venerable  Peshito- 
Syriac  version  V 


*  Kurtz,  p.  99.     The  Coptic  version  gives  the  same  reading. 


'  >  ,  • 

BAPTIST    ERRORS.  77 

But  it  is  not  admitted  that  the  Syriac  version  renders 
the  word  baptize,  by  a  word  signifying  immerse.  The 
best  scholars  deny  it.  Professor  Stuart  shows  that  while 
the  Syriac  has  a  word,  which  means  to  plunge,  dip,  or 
immerse,  the  Syriac  version  does  not  employ  that  word, 
but  another  which  signifies  " to  confirm- — to  establish" 
so  that  "  Baptism,  then,  in  the  language  of  the  Peshito, 
is  the  rite  of  confirmation  simply,  while  the  manner  of 
this  is  apparently  left  without  being  at  all  expressed."* 
An  English  Baptist,  who  is,  as  says  a  competent  judge, 
"  evidently  a  master  in  Israel,"  has  recently  written  against 
the  "Baptist  Translation  Society.  This  writer  accords 
with  Professor  Stuart  with  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the 
Syriac  word  by  which  baptize  is  translated  in  the  version 
in  question."  "  I  confess,"  says  he,  "  I  can  derive  no  coun- 
tenance to  my  practice  as  a  Baptist  from  this  version." 
Concerning  the  Ethiopic  and  Coptic  versions,  he  admits 
that  "  they  must  be  set  aside,  if  they  are  not  used  against 
us  (c  the  Baptists')  in  the  baptismal  controversy."! 

The  ancient  Syriac  version  is  the  present  Bible  of  the 
Nestorian  Christians.  Their  modern  word  for  baptize  is 
radically  the  word  employed  in  the  ancient  version,  and 
like  the  German  taufen,  and  the  English  baptize,  it  is 
exclusively  appropriated  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 
They  baptize,  either  by  immersion  or  affusion,  and  make 
no  objection  when  they  see  our  missionaries  baptize  by 
sprinkling,  but  consider  it  as  good  and  valid  baptism.  Mr 
Woolsey  is,  therefore,  as  much  mistaken  here,  as  he  is  in 
the  case  of  Martin  Luther's  version. 

DUTCH,  DANISH,  AND  SWEDISH  VERSIONS. 

Our  Baptist  brethren   affirm  that  the  Danish,  Dutch, 

*  From  Judd's  Reply  to  Professor  Stuart,  p.  164. 
t  See  New  York  Evangelist,  Jan.  23,  1841. 
7 


78  A   REFUTATION   OF 

and  Swedish  versions  have  the  words  in  dispute  transla- 
ted by  words  signifying  immersion."* 

On  this  subject  I  will  simply  quote  the  words  of  Dr. 
Henderson  who  has  studied  the  languages  of  Northern  Eu- 
rope on  the  ground,  and  is  familiar  with  their  idioms. 
Dr.  Henderson  is  authority  upon  this  subject,  which  will 
not  probably  be  questioned. 

Says  Dr.  Henderson,  "  As  it  respects  the  Gothic  dia- 
lects, which  have  been  repeatedly  appealed  to  with  great 
confidence,  it  is  a  settled  point  with  all  who  are  acquaint- 
ed with  them,  that  the  reference  is  totally  irrelevant- 
That  the  Maeso-gothic  daupian  the  Anglo-Saxon  dyppan, 
the  Dutch  doopen,  the  Swedish  dopa,  the  Danish  dobe,  and 
the  German  tan/en,  all  correspond  in  sound  to  our  Eng- 
lish word  dip,  does  not  admit  of  any  dispute,  any  more 
than  the  fact  that  dab,  daub,  and  dub,  have  the  same  corres- 
pondence, but  nothing  would  be  more  erroneous  than  to 
conclude,  with  the  exception  of  the  Anglo-Saxon,  that 
they  must  have  the  same  signification.  No  Dutchman, 
Dane,  Swede,  or  German,  would  for  a  moment  imagine 
that  the  words  belonging  to  their  respective  languages, 
meant  anything  else  than  baptism,  by  the  application  of 
water  to  the  body  baptized.  The  words  are  never  used  in 
those  languages  in  another  sense,  or  in  application  to  any 
other  subject.  Where  the  Germans  would  express  dip  or 
immerse  they  employ  tauchen  and  not  taufen,  which  is 
the  word  by  which  baptize  is  translated.  The  Danes,  in 
like  manner,  use  dyppe  and  neddyppe,  for  dip,  and  not 
dobe.  And  that  neither  Luther,  nor  the  authors  of  the 
Dutch,  Danish,  and  Swedish  versions,  had  any  intention  of 
conveying  the  idea  of  immersion  as  implied  in  baptize,  is 
obvious  from  the  preposition  which  they  have  used  with 
the  verb.  Thus  we  read  in  German,  mil  wasser  taufen  5 

*    Report  Am.  F.  Bib.  Soc.  1840,  p.  38.    Woolsey,  p.  138. 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  79 

in  Danish,  dobe  met  vand  ;  in  Swedish,  dopa  med  vatn ; 
in  Dutch,  doopen  met  wasser  :  i.  e.  with  water,  and  not  in 
wasser — in  water,  i  vand,  i  vatn  ;  which  phraseology  is  as 
foreign  to  these  languages  as  the  practice  which  it  would 
sanction  is  unknown  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  countries  in 
which  they  are  spoken.  Even  the  Mennonites*  in  Hol- 
land, and  other  parts,  though  they  reject  infant  baptism, 
administer  the  ordinance  by  pouring,  and  not  by  immer- 
sion." 

THE    VULGATE. 

Mr.  Woolsey  says,  p.  82,  that  "  The  Roman  Catholic 
Bible,  i.  e.  the  Latin  Vulgate,  was  the  first  to  transfer  bap- 
tize and  other  words,  rather  than  translate  them."  Again, 
p.  83,  he  calls  the  Vulgate  the  "  authorized  Roman  Bible.'' 
On  p.  89,  he  classes  our  English  Bible  and  the  Vulgate  to- 
gether as  "  UNWORTHY  models." 

Now  it  is  true  that  the  Vulgate  is  the  "  authorized 
Bible  "  (in  the  Roman  Catholic  church.  But  it  is  also  true 
that  the  Vulgate  was  made  before  the  Papal  church  had  an 
existence.  The  Vulgate  was  declared  the  standard  ver- 
sion of  the  Roman  church  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  in 
1545 :  but  it  ought  not  to  be  forgotten  that  it  was  to  an 


*  The  Mennonitcs  ,  who  were  once  warm  and  uncompromising 
contenders  for  immersion,  at  length  gave  it  up,  and  have  been,  for 
more  than  a  hundred  years,  in  the  practice  of  pouring  water  on 
the  head  of  the  candidate  through  the  hand  of  the  administrator. 
"  They  found  that  when  candidates  were  lying  on  sick  beds,  or 
confined  in  prison,  or  in  a  state  of  peculiarly  delicate  health,  or  in 
various  other  unusual  situations  which  may  be  easily  imagined, 
that  there  was  so  much  difficulty,  not  to  say  in  some  cases  a  total 
impossibility  in  baptizing  by  plunging,  that  they  deliberately,  as  a 
denomination,  agreed  to  lay  aside  the  practice  of  immersion  and 
substituted  the  plan  of  affusion."  (Dr.  Miller,  p.  82  ) 


80  A   REFUTATION    OF 

old  copy  of  the  Vulgate,  which  providentially  fell  into  the 
hands  of  Martin  Luther,  long  before  the  Council  of  Trent, 
that  we  owe  the  Reformation.  The  Bible  on  which  the 
Eeformation  was  built,  and  which  was  in  use  by  all  the 
ancient  Western  churches,  before  the  Papal  church  was 
born,  ought  not,  surely,  thus  to  be  thrown  by  with  a  sar- 
casm, as  "  The  Roman  Catholic  Bible."  In  the  time  of 
Jerome,  who  was  born  about  A.  D.  330,  there  were  several 
Latin  versions  of  the  Bible  and  of  parts  of  the  Bible.  One 
of  them,  adopted  by  ecclesiastical  authority,  had  long  been 
called  the  Vulgate,  or  common  version.  In  the  process  of 
transcribing  many  times,  many  mistakes  had  crept  into  the 
common  copies.  In  A.  D.  383,  Jerome  began  a  revision 
of  this  ancient  Vulgata,  or  Itala  version — having  before 
him  the  original  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  origi- 
nal Greek  of  the  New,  together  with  the  Hexapla  of  Ori- 
gen.*  With  these,  and  with  all  other  aids  before  him 
which  the  age  afforded,  Jerome  sat  down  to  the  revision 
of  the  old  Itala  or  Vulgata :  a  part  of  which  revision  is 
still  extant,  (the  book  of  Job,  and  the  book  of  Psalms,) 
the  remainder  is  lost.  But  impressed  with  the  necessity 
of  a  new  version,  and  counselled  by  friends,  he  began  at 
the  same  time  a  new  version,  which  he  completed  A.  D. 
405,  and  which  is  now  the  well  known  Vulgate.  This 


*  This  Hexapla  was  composed  of  six  versions  of  the  Scriptures, 
arranged  in  six  parallel  columns:  a  work  which  Origcn  com- 
mcnced  about  A.  D.  231,  for  the  purpose  of  saving  the  sacred  text 
from  corruption.  In  the  first  column  was  the  Septuagint,  a  Greek 
version  of  the  Old  Testament,  made  280  years  before  Christ.  In 
the  second  column  was  the  version  of  Aquila,  a  proselyte  Jew, 
made  about  A.  D.  128.  The  third  was  that  of  Symmachus,  pub- 
lished about  A.  D.  175.  The  fifth  was  an  old  version  found  at  Je- 
richo, about  A.  D.  217  :  and  the  sixth  another,  discovered  at  Ni- 
copolis,  about  A.  D.  238. 


BAPTIST    ERRORS.  81 

gradually  prevailed,  and  in  time  entirely  supplanted  the 
old  Itala. 

In  this  version  the  Greek  baptize,  is  adopted  into  the 
Latin  as  a  Latin  word.  It  was  probably  so  in  the  old 
Itala.  Jerome  could  not  have  changed  the  practice  of  the 
whole  Latin  church  in  administering  the  ordinance  of 
baptism,  and  taught  them  to  say  "  baptizote,"  instead  of 
"  submergote,"  had  the  latter  or  any  such  word  been  in 
common  use.  I  see  no  reason  to  doubt  that,  from  the 
very  day  that  baptism  was  first  administered  at  Home',  or 
in  the  Latin  tongue,  the  word  baptize  was  at  once  adopted 
into  the  Latin  tongue  by  a  transfer  from  the  Greek ;  and 
if  so,  it  was  done  either  by,  or  with  the  sanction  of  the 
apostles  themselves.  At  all  events,  while  there  was  a 
common  Latin  word  for  immerse  and  for  submerge,  (these 
two  English  words  are  taken  from  the  Latin) — Jerome, 
and  the  Christian  world  with  him,  did  not  employ  either 
submerge  or  immergo,  but  baptizo.  Now  the  Baptists 
affirm  that  the  whole  Christian  world  were  Baptists  at 
that  time ;  i.  e.,  that  they  considered  baptism  to  be  syno- 
nymous with  immersion,  and  practised  accordingly.  If 
this  were  so,  then  the  Vulgate  is  rather  a  Baptist  Bible  than 
a  Roman  Catholic  Bible :  and  immersers  first  led  the  way 
in  transferring  the  word  baptize,  instead  of  translating  it 
by  a  word  in  common  use.  This  outcry  about  "  trans- 
f erring"  and  "concealing,"  comes  to  this  at  last. 

But  an  argument  may  be  built  upon  these  facts.  The 
ancient  Western  Church,  whose  common  language  was 
Latin,  had  an  abundant  supply  of  words  to  express  immer- 
sion and  submersion,  if  they  had  thought  immersion  the 
only  baptism,  or  essential  to  it.  But  so  far,  from  em- 
ploying one  of  their  common  words,  they  transferred  the 
original  Greek  word  baptize,  adopted  it  into  their  lan- 
guage, and  gave  it  a  complete  naturalization.  When  they 
7* 


•  .         :'":y 

82  A   REFUTATION   OF 

spoke  of  baptism,  they  called  it  an  ablution,  a  washing,  a 
distilling  of  the  purifying  dew  ;  they  spoke  of  it  not  as  an 
immersion.  As  to  the  manner  of  performing  baptism, 
even  when  they  generally  practised  immersion,  they  did 
not  always  do  so,  and  of  course  never  deemed  it  essential. 
What  is  the  inevitable  conclusion  from  these  facts  1  That 
they  did  not  consider  the  word  immerse,  or  the  word  sub- 
merge as  equivalent  to  the  word  baptize :  and  that  a  sub- 
stitution of  these  words  for  that  would  not  be  an  adequate 
faithful  translation. 

;  Here,  then,  we  have  the  judgment  of  the  ancient  church 
with  regard  to  the  propriety  of  transferring  the  word  in 
question  :  and  that  judgment  founded  upon  the  conviction 
that  neither  of  their  existing  words  would  truly  and  ade- 
quately express  the  true  idea  of  Christian  baptism. 

This  was  the  judgment  of  the  Christian  church  in  the 
time  of  Jerome :  and  in  his  days  the  use  of  baptizo,  as  a 
common  Latin  word,  was  a  custom,  whereof  the  memory 
of  man  ran  not  to  the  contrary — as  a  practice  in  which  all 
Christians  who  spake  the  Latin  language  acquiesced  and 
undoubtingly  agreed.  THE  TRANSFER  WAS,  "without  any 
ground  for  doubt  of  which  I  am  informed,  MADE  IN  THE 

DAYS    OF    THE    APOSTLES    THEMSELVES.       It    is    not,    as    Mr. 

Woolsey's  book,  and  the  Report  of  the  Baptist  Bible  Socie- 
ty would  lead  those  to  suppose  who  are  not  otherwise 
informed,  a  recent  invention,  to  oppose  the  Baptists,  and 
"  to  conceal  a  part  of  God's  revealed  will  from  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth,  in  a  dead  language,  with  the  view  of 
promoting  party  designs,  and  of  preventing  men  from 
knowing  his  will  and  their  duty  and  obligation  to  obey 
him." 

STRANGE    REPRESENTATIONS. 

Mr.  Woolsey  says,  p.  202,  "  Indeed  I  am  compelled 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  83 

to  say,  that  it  is  a  most  visionary  plea,  to  which  our  Pedo- 
baptist  brethren  have  resorted,  to  represent  the  land  of 
Canaan,  in  the  times  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  as  a  barren } 
sterile,  sandy  desert,  having  neither  fountains  nor  rivers 
of  water  /" 

When — where  have  Pedobaptists  "resorted"  to  this 
"  plea?."  When — where  have  they  "represented  the 
LAND  OF  CANAAN,  in  the  times  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  as 
a  BARREN  AND  STERILE  DESERT,  having  neither  fountains 
nor  rivers  of  water  ?"  Can  Mr.  Woolsey  tell  us  when, 
or  where  such  representations  have  been  made  I  I  have 
neither  heard  all  that  Pedobaptists  have  said,  nor  read  all 
that  they  have  written.  I  cannot  here  affirm  a  universal 
negative,  and  say  that  no  Pedobaptist  has  ever  resorted  to 
such  a  "  visionary  plea,"  and  made  such  a  representation  of 
the  land  of  Canaan.  But  I  must  be  allowed  to  express  my 
doubts ;  and  to  call  upon  Mr.  Woolsey  to  substantiate  this 
allegation,  or  to  retract  it  as  injurious  and  untrue.  Nor 
will  it  be  sufficient  to  show  that  one  or  two  have  at  some 
time  made  such  representations  of  the  land  of  Canaan. 
Mr.  Woolsey  affirms  it  of  "  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  :" 
by  which  we  must  understand  him,  either  that  such  repre- 
sentations are  commonly  made  by  Pedobaptists,  or  by  a 
sufficient  number  of  Pedobaptists  of  intelligence  and  stand- 
ing, to  fix  the  charge  upon  the  Pedobaptist  community  in 
general. 

He  describes  us  as  making  these  representations  of  the 
land  of  Canaan  in  direct  and  wanton  contradiction  of  the 
Scriptures,  which  speak  of  Palestine  as  u  chosen  before  all 
other  portions  of  the  earth,  for  its  fertility  and  its  abun- 
dant resources  of  every  kind,  especially  those  of  water :" 
and  adds,  "  Alas !  what  liberties  men  take  with  the  Bible  ! 
Sprinkling  must  be  supported  at  the  expense  of  every  real 
truth  of  holy  religion!  The  Bible  must  be  contradicted, 


84  A    REFUTATION    OF 

its  sense  must  be  frittered  away,  and  every  thing  expunged 
from  the  sacred  page,  which  comes  in  competition  with 
this  Darling — a  legitimate  offspring  of  the  Church  of 
Eome,  but  now  NURSED  in  the  lap  of  Christianity."  He 
finally  concludes  the  subject  by  saying,  "  I  am  at  a  loss  to 
know  how  an  enlightened  Christian  can  advocate  sprink- 
ling for  one  moment,  unless  it  be  on  the  ground  to  which 
Mr.  Henry  alludes,  when  he  says,  "  How  often  are  the  pre- 
judices of  bigotry  held  fast  against  the  clearest  discoveries 
and  plainest  dictates  of  divine  truth  /" 

These  are  serious  charges — a  serious  impeachment  oi 
our  honesty  and  truth ;  charges  based  upon  the  allegation 
that  we  have  "represented  the  land  of  Canaan  in  the 
times  of  the  apostles,  as  a  barren,  sterile,  sandy  desert ^ 
having  neither  fountains  nor  rivers  of  water."  If  such  re- 
presentations have  been  made  by  Pedobaptists,  again  I 
say,  let  them  be  shown. 

Again,  on  p.  181,  Mr.  Woolsey  says,  "  And  yet  an  at- 
tempt is  made  to  support  sprinkling,  by  imposing  upon  the 
credulity  of  the  young  and  unskilled  in  ancient  geography, 
in  making  them  believe  that  there  was  not  water  in  and 
about  Jerusalem  and  Damascus,  which  would  admit  of 
immersing  a  human  being." 

This  will  doubtless  be  a  piece  of  news  to  the  Pedobap- 
tist  world.  Who  has  made  such  an  "  attempt  !"  Who  is 
it  that  is  guilty  of  this  monstrous  endeavor  to  impose  upon 
the  credulity  of  the  young  and  the  unskilled  in  ancient 
geography  1  The  Pedobaptist  world  will  stand  in  doubt 
who  it  is  that  has  done  this  till  Mr.  Woolsey  shall  tell  us. 
If  he  fails  to  tell  us,  he  must  pardon  us  if  we  stand 
in  doubt  whether  what  he  has  told  us  be  true  5  for  it 
sounds  very  strange  and  improbable  to  our  ears.  We 
shall  not  deem  it  a  clearing  up  of  this  matter,  to  refer  us 
to  what  has  been  said  of  the  region  where  John  was  bap- 


* 

BAPTIST   ERRORS.  85 

tizing,  when  the  Scripture  says  of  him,  "John  did  baptize 
in  the  wilderness :"  for  both  Scripture  and  historians,  and 
recent  travelers,  have  put  that  matter  beyond  debate  ; 
that  that  part  of  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  was— and  still  is 
— a  wilderness,  to  a  remarkable  extent,  without  fountains 
and  springs  of  water.  Mr.  Wbolsey  is  not  here  speaking 
of  the  wilderness,  but  of  the  region  "  in  and  about  Jeru- 
salem and  Damascus:"  and  he  introduces  the  passage 
which  I  have  cited,  in  connection  with  Paul's  baptism 
which  occurred  at  the  latter  place. 

Mr.  Woolsey  says,  p.  199,  "  Were  it  right  to  suffer  sin 
upon  a  brother  I  would  gladly  draw  the  mantle  of  obli- 
vion over  the  entire  course  by  which  sprinkling,  and  in- 
fant sprinkling  are  kept  alive  in  the  Christian  church." 
He  tells  us,  p.  134,  of  "some  of  our  friends,  who  are  at 
the  laboring  oar  night  and  day  to  make  sprinkling  answer 
for  immersion  in  the  rite  of  baptism,  and  to  keep  their 
consciences  in  a  state  of  tolerable  rest."  He  says,  p.  135? 
"  Is  it  not  pitiful  in  the  extreme,  that  such  efforts  should 
be  made  to  avoid  following  the  lowly,  yet  delightful  foot- 
steps of  Jesus."  And  he  asks,  p.  136,  "  What  shall  we 
say,  what  must  we  think  of  those  who,  professing  to  be 
acquainted  with  the  Greek  tongue,  venture  to  assert  that 
baptize  does  not  mean  to  dip  or  immerse  in  the  Hebrew- 
Greek  1  A  learned  Presbyterian,"  he  says,  "  has  answer- 
ed this  interrogation." 

Whether  the  words  of  the  learned  Presbyterian  are  to 
have  any  just  application  to  these  allegations  concerning 
the  Pedobaptist  representations  of  "  Palestine,"  and  of  the 
region  "  in  and  about  Jerusalem  and  Damascus,"  must  be 
determined  according  to  the  success  or  failure  of  Mr. 
Woolsey  in  substantiating  these  grievous  charges.  But 
the  following  is  his  quotation  from  the  learned  Presbyte- 
rian : — 


86  A  BEFUTATION   OP 

"  One  who  argues  in  this  manner,  never  fails,  with  per- 
sons of  knowledge,  to  hetray  the  cause  he  would  defend  ; 
and  though  with  respect  to  the  vulgar,  bold  assertions 
generally  succeed  as  well  as  argument,  and  sometimes  bet- 
ter ,  yet  a  candid  m  ind  will  always  disdain  to  take  the 
help  of  FALSEHOOD,  even  in  the  support  of  truth." 

JOHN  BUNYAN. 

I  shall  close  my  remarks  on  Mr.  Woolsey's  book,  so  far 
as  concerns  the  mode  of  baptism,  by  noting  how  he  uses 
the  name  of  Bunyan ;  as  a  specimen  of  the  appeals  to 
prejudice,  in  which  his  book  abounds. 

On  p.  14-8,  Mr.  Woolsey  says,  "  About  the  time  that 
Mr.  Baxter  wrote  his '  plain  Scripture  proof,'  the  great  and 
good  John  Bunyan,  a  Baptist,  of  whom  the  world  was  not 
worthy,  was  confined  in  prison  for  the  space  of  twelve 
years.  Many  a  Baptist  suffered  even  unto  death  for 
Christ's  sake  and  the  Gospel." 

What  has  the  character  or  conduct  of  Baxter  or  of  Bun- 
yan to  do  with  the  question  at  issue  1  Nothing  at  all. 
Had  they  both  been  kings  or  slaves,  saints  or  pirates,  an- 
gels or  devils,  it  would  bear  nothing  on  the  question  wheth- 
er immersion  is  the  only  baptism,  or  whether  infants  are 
to  be  baptized;  yet  such  inuendos  as  Mr.  Woolsey  has 
made  with  regard  to  Baxter  and  Bunyan  may  work  upon 
the  prejudices  of  people,  and  so  answer  a  purpose,  even  if 
they  aid  nothing  in  determining  the  truth. 

But  what  are  the  facts  with  regard  to  Baxter  and  Bun- 
yan 1  Not  at  all  as  Mr.  Woolsey's  inuendo  would  lead 
people  to  suppose.  Bunyan  was  not  persecuted  or  im- 
prisoned for  being  a  Baptist,  but  for  being  a  non-conform- 
ist ;  and  that  under  the  same  laws,  and  by  means  of  the 
same  persecutors  as  those  by  which  Baxter  himself  was 
again  and  again  imprisoned,  shut  out  from  preaching  ten 


. 

BAPTIST    ERRORS.  87 

years  together,  driven  from  home,  harassed  withinforma- 
tions,  fines,  warrants  of  distress,  persecuted  with  slander, 
brought  before  magistrates  and  courts,  committed  to  the 
tender  mercies  of  a  trial  before  the  inhuman  Jeffries  j 
again,  and  yet  again  harassed,  distressed  and  imprisoned  ; 
and  so  he  dragged  out  his  life,  amid  the  sufferings  of  a  body 
enfeebled  by  disease,  and  the  distresses  brought  upon  him 
by  persecution,  till  near  the  time  when  his  exhausted  na- 
ture found  rest  in  the  grave.  Bunyan  and  Baxter  suffer- 
ed under  the  same  persecuting  laws  by  which  two  thou- 
sand faithful  Pedobaptist  ministers  were  turned  out  of  their 
livings,  and  driven  away  from  their  work,  and  otherwise 
distressed,  for  non-conformity  with  the  Episcopal,  the  es- 
tablished church  of  England.  Baxter  had  been  offered  a 
Bishopric,  and  might  have  lived  in  quiet  and  rolled  in 
splendor  had  he  been  a  less  conscientious  and  a  less  holy 
man. 

Mr.  Woolsey  says  that  John  Bunyan  was  confined  in 
prison  "  about  the  time  that  Mr.  Baxter  wrote  his  '  Plain 
Scripture  Proof.'  "  Baxter's  "  Plain  Scripture  Proof  of  In- 
fant Baptism,"  was  written  about  the  year  1649.  Bunyan 
entered  the  ministry  in  1656.  His  arrest  and  imprison- 
ment was  in  November  1660,  soon  after  the,  restoration 
of  King  Charles  II. 

Bunyan  gives  a  detailed  account  of  his  arrest,  exami- 
nation, trial,  and  imprisonment.  He  records  his  examina- 
tions in  the  form  of  dialogues ;  and  from  these  it  does  not 
appear  that  either  Bunyan  or  his  persecutors  thought  that 
his  being  a  Baptist  had  the  slightest  concern  in  procuring 
his  arrest  and  imprisonment.  Bunyan  says,  concerning  his 
bill  of  indictment,  "  The  extent  thereof  was  as  followeth  : 
That  John  Bunyan  of  the  town  of  Bedford,  laborer,  being 
a  person  of  such  and  such  conditions,  he  hath  (since  such 
a  time)  devlishlj  and  perniciously  abstained  from  coming 


A   REFUTATION   OF 


to  CHURCH  to  hear  divine  service,  and  is  a  common  up- 
holder of  several  unlawful  meetings  and  conventicles,  to 
the  great  disturbance  and  distraction  of  the  good  subjects 
of  this  kingdom,  contrary  to  the  laws  of  our  sovereign  lord 
the  King."* 

But  to  say  nothing  about  persecution,  with  what  sort 
of  reasoning  can  Mr.  Woolsey  pretend  to  make  capital 
stock  out  of  the  name  of  Bunyan  1  "  Bunyan  was  a  Bap. 
fist"  True,  he  was  so  ;  but  such  a  Baptist  as  Mr.  Wool- 
sey and  the  close  communion  Baptists  would  visit  with 
censure  and  church  discipline,  even  rto  excommunication, 
were  he  now  alive  and  within  their  pale*  John  Bunyan 
was  not  a  dose  communion  Baptist  ;  any  more  than  the 
celebrated  Robert  Hall,  of  whom  a  close  communion 
Baptist  minister  said  to  me  not  long  since,  "  He  was  not 
of  our  denomination."  John  Bunyan  joined  an  open 
communion  church,  which,  says  his  biographer  Philip, 
"  was  not  wholly  a  Baptist  church."  Says  Philip,  p.  312, 
"  Bunyan  was  not  much  indebted  to  them  (the  Baptists,) 
as  a  body,"  Individual  churches  and  ministers  did  much 
for  him  and  his  family,  and  the  Calvinistic  section  of  the 
body  duly  appreciated  his  orthodoxy,  but  neither  the  gen- 
eral nor  particular  Baptists  cared  much  about  him.  Both 
abetted  some  of  their  chief  men  in  lessening  his  fame  and 
influence.  "  They  called  him  a  Machiavelian,  a  man 
devilish,  proud,  insolent,  and  presumptuous.  Some  com- 
pared him  to  the  devil  j  others  to  a  bedlamite  ,  others  to  a 
sot  5  and  they  sneered  at  his  low  origin,  and  the  base  oc- 
cupation from  which  he  had  risen." 

All  this  Bunyan  suffered  from  the  Baptists,  "for  advo- 
cating and  preaching  open  communion"  Bunyan, 

*  Philip's  Life  and  Times  of  Bunyan,  p.  246. 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  89 

however,  was  of  a  magnanimous  disposition,  and  could  ap- 
preciate heroism  even  in  those  who  abused  him.  "  I  for- 
give Mr.  Kiffen,"  says  he,  "  and  love  him  never  the  worse 
for  what  he  hath  done  in  the  matter  of  those  unhandsome 
brands  that  my  brethren  have  laid  upon  me,  for  saying 
that  the  church  of  Christ  haih  not  warrant  to  keep  out  of 
her  communion  a  visible  saint, ," 

Says  Philip,  p.  318,  "All  sufferers  for  conscience'  sake 
were  dear  to  Bunyan,  and  hence  he  grouped  them  together 
in  his  kind  appeals  to  them  ;  and  his  appeals  had  weight 
after  the  publication  of  his  PILGRIM.  That  book  opened 
many  hearts  to  him  amongst  the  strict  Baptists,  although 
it  relaxed  none  of  their  strictness.  Christian  and  Hopeful 
were  admitted  into  full  communion  in  all  their  churches, 
although  John  Bunyan  was  shut  out." 

MIS-STATEMENT  OF  THE    ARGUMENT  FOR  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

On  p.  238,  Mr.  Woolsey  professes  to  examine   "  THE 

MOST  POPULAR  ARGUMENTS,  UPON  WHICH  OUR  PEDOBAP- 
TIST  BRETHREN  REST  THE  VALIDITY  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM." 

His  first  section  under  this  chapter,  has  the  following 

caption  :  "  The  validity  of  Infant  Baptism  is  urged  and 

thought  to  be  established,  on  the  ground  of  its  being  taken 

for  granted,  without  any  express  command  in  the  New 

Testament" 

Under  this  he  says,  "  Strange  as  it  may  appear,  the  va- 
lidity of  infant  baptism  is  urged  on  the  very  ground  that 
Baptists  reject  it.  We  reject  it  because  not  commanded 
in  the  Bible.  They  hold  to  it  because  not  commanded, 
but  taken  for  granted." 

He  goes  on : — "  The  silence  of  the  New  Testament 
quite  sufficient  to  establish  infant  baptism ! ! !  How 
strangely  do  men  reason  when  they  want  for  solid  and 
8 


90  A   REFUTATION   OF 

substantial  testimony !  Who  could  have  thought  that  a 
doctor  of  divinity  should  have,  at  this  enlightened  day, 
employed  logic  so  singularly  strange,  and  at  war  with 
every  acknowledged  principle  of  correct  reasoning  ! ! " 

"Plead  the  validity  of  a  practice  on  the  ground  of  the 
entire  silence  of  Scripture ! ! !  What  a  principle  this  for 
Protestants  of  the  nineteenth  century ! !" 

"  Shall  the  absence  of  all  evidence  be  made  the  best  of 
evidence  T' 

He  likens  the  argument  to  the  proceeding  of  a  court, 
when  the  accuser  fails  to  bring  forward  any  testimony  to 
establish  the  charge," — condemning  a  person  because  there 
is  no  evidence  against  him , — "  making  the  entire  absence 
of  all  testimony  against  you  quite  sufficient  to  establish, 
the  groundless  charge  ! ! !  "  This  illustration  he  pursues 
to  some  length,  and  then  says,  "  Jlnd  yet  this  is  precisely 
the  kind  of  argument  which  our  Pedobapist  brethren  em- 
ploy in  justification  of  infant  baptism." 

Now  every  person  who  has  ever  been  familiar  with  the 
arguments  for  infant  baptism  knows  that  this  is  an  entire 
misrepresentation  and  a  most  injurious  one. 

Mr.  Woolsey  here  refers  to  Dr.  Miller  of  Princeton, 
and  represents  him  as  "making  the  entire  absence  of  all 
evidence  the  best  of  evidence;"  and  " pleading  the  va- 
lidity of  a  practice  ON  THE  GROUND  of  the  entire  silence 
of  the  Scripture." 

Now  when  Mr.  Woolsey  made  this  representation,  he 
doubtless  had  Dr.  Miller's  book  before  him,  as  he  quotes 
Dr.  Miller's  words.  He  must  have  known  then,  that  im- 
mediately before  the  words  which  he  has  quoted,  Dr.  Mil- 
ler lays  down  the  following  heads  of  argument,  and  large. 
ly  and  ably  maintains  and  illustrates  them  ;  viz. 

1.  "Because  in  allJehovatis  covenants  with  his  pro- 
fessing people,  their  infant  seed  have  been  included" 

2.  "  The  dose  and  endearing  connection  between  pa* 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  91 

rents  and  children,  affords  a  strong  argument  in  favor 
of  the  church-membership  of  the  infant  seed  of  be- 
lievers." 

8.  "  The  actual  and  acknowledged  church-member  ship 
of  infants  under  the  Old  Testament  economy,  is  a  deci- 
sive index  of  the  divine  will  in  regard  to  this  matter;'' 

o 

4.  «*  It  is  equally  certain  that  the  church  of  God  is 
the  sjme  in  substance  now  that  it  was  then" 

5.  l*  If  infan's  were  once  members,  and  if  the  church 
remains  the    same,  they  undoubtedly  are  still  members, 

UNLESS  SOME  POSITIVE  ENACTMENT  EXCLUDING  THEM  CAN 
BE  FOUND." 

6.  "  Baptism  has  come  in  the  room  of  circumcision" 

7.  ."  We  fin  I  the  principle  of  family  baptism  again 
and  again  adopted  in  the  apostolic  age.1 

8.  "  We  cannot  imagine  that  the  privileges  and  the 
sign  of  infant  membership,  to  which  all  the  first  Chris- 
tians had  been  so  long  accustomed,  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  AB- 
RUPTLY WITHDRAWN,  without  wounding  the  hearts  of  pa- 
rents, and  producing  in  them  feelings   of  revolt  and 
complaixt  n gainst  the  new  economy  " 

9.  "  Although  the  New  Testament  does  not  contain  any 
specific  texts,  which,  in  so  many  words,  declare  that  the 
infant  seed  of  believers  are  members  of  the  church  in  vir- 
tue of  their  birth ;  yet  it  abounds  in  passages  which  can- 
not reasonably  be  explained  but  in  harmony  with  this 
doct'ine." 

10.  "Finally;  the  history  of  the   Christian  church 
FROM  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE,  furnishes  an  argument  of  irre- 
sistible force  in  favor  of  the  divine  authority  of  infant 
baptism." 

All  these  propositions  Dr.  Miller  largely  expands  and 
ably  argues.  He  then  unfolds  the  supposition  which  our 
Baptist  brethren  are  by  their  system  obliged  to  take  for 
granted  $— "  That,  after  the  children  of  God  had  been  for 


»2  A   REFUTATION    OF 

nearly  two  thousand  years,  in  the  enjoyment  of  an  impor- 
tant privilege," — "  it  was  suddenly,  and  without  explana- 
tion set  aside ;  that  on  the  opening  of  the  New  Testament 
dispensation,  a  dispensation  of  larger  promises,  arid  of  in- 
creased liberality,  this  privilege  was  abruptly  and  totally 
withdrawn  ; —  *  *  *  that  all  this  took  place  without 
one  hint  of  any  reason  for  it  being  given ;  without  one 
syllable  being  said,  in  all  the  numerous  epistles,  by  any 
one  of  justification  or  apology,  for  so  important  a  change ! 
Nay,  that  instead  of  such  notice  and  explanation,  a  mode 
of  expression  under  the  new  economy,  should  be  through- 
out used,  corresponding  with  the  former  practice,  and 
adapted  still  to  convey  the  idea  that  both  parents  and 
children  stood  in  their  old  relation,  notwithstanding  the 
painful  change !  Is  this  credible  !  Can  it  be  believed  by 
any  one  who  is  not  pre-determined  to  regard  it  as  true  V 

Having  set  forth  this  consideration  with  great  force,  Dr. 
Miller  adds,  "  I  must  say,  my  friends,  that  to  my  mind, 
'his  consideration,  were  there  no  other,  is  conclusive.  In- 
stead of  our  Baptist  brethren  having  a  right  to  call  upon 
us  to  find  a  direct  warrant  in  the  New  Testament,  in  fa- 
vor of  infant  membership,  we  have  a  right  to  call  upon 
them  to  produce  a  direct  warrant  for  the  great  and  sud- 
den change  which  they  alledge  took  place.' '  And  then 
follow  the  words  quoted  by  Mr.  Woolsey  ;  "  If  it  be  as 
they  say  that  the  New  Testament  is  silent  on  the  subject, 
this  very  silence  is  quite  sufficient  to  destroy  their  cause 
and  establish  ours.1' 

Every  one  will  perceive  that  Dr.  Miller  builds  his  argu- 
ment, not  UPON  the  entire  silence  of  the  Scripture,  con- 
cerning infant  baptism ;  but  upon  circumstances  and  con- 
siderations, which,  IN  the  entire  silence  of  the  Scripture 
with  regard  to  "a  direct  warrant,"  are  decisive  proof. 
These  institutions  and  records  SUBSISTING  in  the  word  of 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  93 

God  ;  the  "  very  silence  of  the  New  Testament,"  which 
the  Baptists  alledge,  "is  quite  sufficient  to  destroy  their 
cause,  and  establish  ours." 

That  this  is  Dr.  Miller's  argument,  I  think  no  one  can 
fail  to  see.  He  has  not  spoken  in  language  which  can  be 
misunderstood,  unless  it  be  violently  torn  out  of  its  con- 
nection and  perverted  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  him 
seem  to  say  what,  if  his  words  be  taken  in  their  plain  im- 
port and  in  their  connection,  he  certainly  has  not  said. 

But  is  this  pleading  the  validity  of  infant  baptism  "on 
the  ground  of  the  entire  silence  of  the  Scripture  ?."  Is 
this  "  making  the  absence  of  all  evidence,  the  best  of  evi- 
dence 1"  Does  Dr.  Miller  plead,  or  admit  the  "  absence 
i>f  all  evidence "  as  establishing  infant  baptism  1  Yet 
such  is  the  representation  which  Mr.  Woolsey  first  made 
to  his  people  from  the  pulpit,  and  which  he  has  now  with 
their  formal  sanction,  deliberately  published  to  the  world. 

After  making  this  representation,  Mr.  Woolsey  has  an- 
other section  under  the  following  caption  :  "  THE  VALIDI- 
TY OF  INFANT  BAPTISM  IS  PLEAD  FOR  AS  OF  DIVINE  APPOINT- 
MENT, BECAUSE  THERE  IS  NO  PROHIBITION  AGAINST  IT." 

This  section  he  commences  thus  :  "And  has  it  come  to 
this  1  Shall  we  hold  our  peace  and  forbear  uttering  our 
decided  disapprobation  against  innovations  into  the  Chris 
tian  church  because  they  are  not  forbidden  1  Shall  we 
tamely  submit  to  every  practice  which  the  ingenuity  of 
man  may  invent,  because  not  interdicted  in  the  Bible  1" 
Is  this  the  truth  ?.  Is  it  the  whole  truth  1  Is  it  all  that 
is  essential  to  the  truth  in  this  matter  ?  Can  Mr.  Wool- 
sey be  ignorant  that  no  Pedobaptist  has  based  an  argument 
for  infant  baptism,  upon  the  simple  absence  of  prohibi- 
tion ?  Can  he  be  ignorant,  that  we  have  uniformly  based 
our  arguments  upon  positive  institutions  of  God  ;  upon 
authentic  records  of  the  Holy  Ghos^  indicative  of  the 
practice  of  the  apostles  j — WHICH  INSTITUTIONS  AND  AR- 
8* 


94  A   REFUTATION   OF 

GUMENTS,  in  the  absence  of  prohibition,  lead,  as  we  think, 
to  the  inevitable  conclusion  that  infant  baptism  was  or- 
dained of  God  1 

QUOTATION  FROM  DR.  WOODS. 

Under  the  foregoing  section,  Mr.  Woolsey  quotes  Dr. 
Woods,  p.  248,  as  though  Dr.  Woods  had  explicitly  given 
up  all  claim  either  to  a  Scriptural  warrant,  or  to  Scriptural 
evidence  for  infant  baptism.  The  quotation  is  thus: 
"  And  Dr.  Woods,  an  associate  of  Professor  Stuart," 
(whom  he  has  just  quoted  in  a  similar  manner)  "  says : 
4  We  have  no  express  precept  or  example  for  infant  bap- 
tism, in  all  our  holy  writings.'  "  , 

Dr.  Woods  indeed  uses  this  language.  But  the  scope 
of  Dr.  Woods'  argument  lays  an  emphasis  here  on  the 
word  "  EXPRESS  5"  and  to  make  Dr.  Woods  say  so  much 
as  is  here  quoted,  and  say  no  more,  is  to  make  him  bear  a 
witness  precisely  the  reverse  of  what  Dr.  Woods  believes, 
and  most  strenuously  and  ably  maintains  to  be  the  truth. 
Mr.  Woolsey  knows  full  well,  that  the  work  of  Dr. 
Woods  from  which  these  words  are  taken,  was  written  for 
the  express  purpose  of  proving  from  the  Scriptures  the 
divine  authority  for  infant  baptism.  Mr.  Woolsey  knows 
full  well  that  Dr.  Woods  most  formally  takes  his  position 
in  the  following  words  : 

"  But  I  shall  now  proceed  to  argue  the  point  FROM  THE 
INSPIRED  RECORDS,  JUST  AS  THEY  ARE.  My  position  is,  that 
the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  understood  accord- 
ing to  just  rules  of  interpretation,  imply  that  the  children 
of  believers  are  to  be  baptized" 

In  the  Preface  to  his  work,  Dr.  Woods  says,  "  The 
reader  will  perceive  that  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism 
is  a  doctrine  which  I  very  seriously  believe,  and  which  I 
feel  it  to  be  my  duty  earnestly  to  maintain.  He  will  per- 


BAPTIST  ERRORS.  95 

ceive  too,  that  the  doctrine  is  dear  to  my  heart,  and  is  as- 
sociated in  my  contemplations  with  the  most  sacred  truths 
of  religion,  and  the  most  precious  interests  of  Christ's 
kingdom.  My  manner  of  treating  this  subject  is  not  the 
result  of  haste,  but  of  repeated  and  long-continued  investi- 
tion."  "  For  many  years  in  the  earlier  part  of  my  life,  I 
had  a  decided  prepossession  in  favor  of  their"  (the  Bap- 
tists') "  peculiar  sentiments  on  the  subject  of  baptism  , 
and  they  have  a  right  to  inquire  for  the  reasons  of  my 
present  belief.  I  here  frankly  give  them  my  reasons." 

In  bringing  forward  Dr.  Woods  for  the  authority  of  his 
name,  his  learning,  his  integrity, — in  testimony ;  in  ad- 
ducing him  as  a  witness  in  this  cause,  Mr.  Woolsey  was 
bound,  in  common  honesty,  to  quote  so  much  of  his  words 
as  would  at  least  let  him  speak  the  truth  as  touching  his 
opinion  on  the  matter  in  question  ;  and  not  just  so  much 
as  would  cause  him  to  be  understood  as  saying  the  reverse 
of  what  he  means.  To  quote  him  in  part,  and  to  sup- 
press what  is  essential  to  the  truth  as  touching  his  know- 
ledge and  belief,  is  an  injury  to  Dr.  Woods,  a  fraud  upon 
the  public,  an  offence  against  the  %truth  ;  which  ought  to 
be  deemed  a  high  moral  misdemeanor  by  the  whole 
Christian  world,  and  deserving  of  solemn  rebuke  from  the 
church  of  God.  Whether  Mr.  Woolsey  has  done  this,  or 
whether  his  quotation  has  dealt  justly  with  Dr.  Woods 
and  with  the  truth,  I  leave  those  who  will  examine  the 
scope  of  the  section  in  which  the  quotation  is  made,  and 
the  connection  in  which  the  words  are  quoted,  to  judge.  I 
am  unable  to  understand  Mr.  Woolsey  here  as  quoting 
Dr.  Woods  in  any  other  way  than  as  though  Dr.  Woods 
admitted  —  and  intended  to  admit  —  that  "  Baptism  must 
not  rest  upon  the  instructions  of  the  word  of  God ;" 
while  it  is  certain  that  Dr.  Woods  holds  and  teaches  the 
very  reverse  of  this. 


96  A  REFUTATION  OF 


QUOTATION  FROM  BAXTER. 

In  a  similar  manner,  p.  272,  273,  Mr.  Woolsey,  in 
speaking  of  the  "  order"  of  teaching  and  baptizing,  as 
bearing  upon  the  question  of  infant  baptism,  quotes  Rich- 
ard Baxter,  (among  others)  in  such  a  way  as  to  make 
Baxter  throw  his  testimony  against  the  propriety  of  bap- 
tizing infants.  The  quotation  is  long.  In  the  first  part 
of  it,  Baxter  shows  that  the  work  of  the  apostles  is  "  first" 
by  teaching  to  make  disciples;  the  "second"  work  to 
baptize ;  the  "  third"  to  teach  them  all  other  things  which 
are  afterward  to  be  learned  in  the  school  of  Christ.  Mr, 
Woolsey  having  quoted  his  words  so  far,  says — "  [observe 
what  follows"]  "To  contemn  this  order,  is  to  renounce 
all  rules  of  order ;  for  where  can  we  expect  to  find  it,  if 
not  here  1  I  profess  my  conscience  is  fully  satisfied  with 
this  text,  that  it  is  one  sort  of  faith,  even  saving,  THAT 
MUST  GO  BEFORE  BAPTISM  ;  and  the  profession  whereof,  the 
minister  must  expect." 

Now  here  is  the  opinion  of  Richard  Baxter,  and  a  sound 
one, — on  a  certain  point;  viz.  whether  adults  are  to  be 
baptized  before  they  have  saving  faith  1  No :  says  Mr. 
Baxter:  my  conscience  is  fully  satisfied  that  they  must 
not. 

Mr.  Baxter  says  this  of  adults.  Mr.  Woolsey  brings  it 
forward  for  the  purpose  of  throwing  the  mighty  name  of 
Baxter  into  the  scale  against  infant  baptism.  But  would 
Baxter  say  this  of  infants  ?  By  no  means.  He  is  a  most 
strenuous  defender  of  the  divine  authority  for  infant  bap- 
tism. He  maintains  that,  "God  never  had  a  church  of 
which  infants  were  not  infant  members,  since  there  were 
infants  in  the  world."  He  published  a  book  which  he 
entitled  "  Plain  Proof  of  Infant  Church  Membership  and 
Baptism,"  and  nineteen  years  afterwards,  another  book 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  97 

entitled  "  More  Proofs  of  Infant  Church  Membership  and 
consequently  their  rights  to  Baptism."  A  Jew  might  have 
argued  concerning  circumcision,  as  Baxter  has  argued 
concerning  baptism  ; — that  adult  Gentiles  must  believe  in 
the  God  of  Abraham,  and  profess  hearty  submission  to  his 
word,  before  being  circumcised  /—and  that  to  "  contemn 
this  order,"  would  be  to  "  renounce  all  rules  of  order/' 
But  would  it  follow  from  this,  that  the  same  Jew  believed 
that  the  infant  children  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  were  not 
to  be  circumcised  till  they  could  first  be  instructed  and 
believe  1  Would  it  be  honest,  to  dite  that  Jew  as  a  wit- 
ness against  an  ordinance  which  he  held  as  undoubtedly 
divine,  because  of  his  argument  concerning  the  "  order" 
of  adult  believing  and  being  circumcised  1  Would  it  be 
accepted  as  a  justification  of  the  act  of  quoting  that  Jew 
for  such  a  purpose,  to  plead  that  he  was  quoted  simply 
concerning  the  u  order"  of  circumcision  1  Would  not  the 
reply  be  obvious,  and  such  as  preclude  the  possibility  of 
justifying  the  quotation  : — "  The  Jew  was  speaking  con- 
cerning the  order  of  "  adult"  circumcision  :  you,  by  quot- 
ing his  words  with  reference  to  the  order  of '"infant" 
circumcision,  have  misquoted  him  and  perverted  his  mean- 
ing :  making  him  bear  witness  against  that  which  he  held 
as  undoubtedly  an  ordinance  of  the  Most  High  God. 

CLAIM    TO    CONFIDENCE    ON    THE    SCORE    OF    QUOTATIONS 
FROM   PEDOBAPTIST   AUTHORS. 

Mr.  Woolsey  says,  in  his  Introduction,  "The  many 
honest  concessions  of  some  of  the  most  able  and  learned 
Pedobaptist  authors  cited  in  this  work,  constitute  one  of 
its  distinguishing  peculiarities,  and  cannot  fail  to  recom- 
mend it  to  the  confidence  of  others." 

The  quotations  from  Pedobaptist  authors  do  indeed 
constitute  one  of  the  distinguishing  features  of  the  work, 


y»  A    REFUTATION   OF 

but  scarcely  one  of  its  distinguishing  peculiarities.  This 
manner  of  quoting  Pedobaptist  authors,  is  not  an  original 
sin  in  Mr.  Woolsey ;  nor  is  he  altogether  peculiar  either 
in  the  number  of  quotations,  or  in  the  mass  of  the  par- 
ticular quotations  which  he  has  made.  Thus  the  quotation 
from  Baxter  is  a  quotation  of  a  quotation.  Mr.  Woolsey 
sets  it  to  the  credit  of  Booth's  "  Pedobaptism  Examined." 
It  is  found  in  Pengilly,  in  Jewett, — and, — indeed  I  know 
not  by  how  many  Baptist  writers  it  has  been  quoted 
over  and  over  again.  Pengilly  is  in  great  part  made  up 
of  such  quotations,  and  in  many  cases  the  very  identical 
quotations.  The  tract  "  Peter  and  Benjamin"  of  the  Bap- 
tist General  Tract  Society,  makes  Peter  say  "  I  have  read 
the  ample  concessions  of  more  than  eighty  Pedobaptist 
writers."  This  has  been  a  favorite  method  or  arguing 
among  our  Baptist  brethren.  But  it  remains  to  be  seen 
whether  such  quotations  as  we  have  examined  "  can"  or 
"  cannot  fail  to  recommend"  Mr.  Woolsey's  book  "  to  the 
confidence  of  others." 

It  is  to  me  a  matter  of  wonder,  that  our  Baptist  brethren 
should  not  have  seen  the  fallacy  of  an  argument  built  on 
the  supposition  that  such  men  as  Baxter,  Miller,  and 
Woods,  in  arguing  most  strenuously  for  practices  which 
they  felt  bound  to  observe  as  the  ordinances  of  God,  should 
have  openly  and  explicitly  given  up  the  very  thing  for 
which  they  were  contending.  Mr.  Woolsey  seems  to 
have  felt  this  difficulty,  and  to  have  endeavored  to  account 
for  so  strange  a  thing.  (Introduction,  p  7).  But  after 
our  examination  of  these  quotations,  I  leave  it  for  the 
reader  to  judge  whether  there  be  not  another  reason  why 
it  has  come  to  pass,  that  these  distinguished  Pedobaptists 
should  seem  "  to  bear,"  as  Mr.  Woolsey  says,  "  the  most 
decided  testimony  against  their  own  cause." 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  99 


CHOICE    OF    WITNESSES. 

"  On  no  point,"  says  Mr.  Woolsey,  "  do  I  appeal  to 
Baptist  authors,  in  support  of  what  I  advance."  "  The 
honest  concessions  of  Pedobaptists  themselves"  *  *  *  * 
"  have  been  the  human  testimonies  adduced  in  support  of 
what  I  attempt  to  advance.  Added  to  these,  I  have  on  a 
few  occasions,  called  in  some  disinterested  witnesses,  as  for 
instance,  a  JEW,  and  a  QUAKER,  and  an  INFIDEL,  who  with 
an  unbiassed  mind  testify  in  favor  of  what  I  teach." 

A  Jew,  a  Quaker,  an  Infidel,  unbiassed  witnesses  !  As 
though  a  Jew  and  an  Infidel  would  be  deeply  interested 
in  obtaining  accurate  knowledge  of  the  ordinances  of  a  re- 
ligion which  they  would  destroy !  as  though  these  would 
be  either  competent  or  credible  witnesses,  concerning  Chris- 
tian ordinances  and  Christian  truth ;  or  be  very  conscien- 
tious and  tender  in  giving  a  testimony  in  favor  of  pure 
Christianity,  rather  than  in  favor  of  those  things  which 
would  corrupt  it  and  throw  an  odium  upon  the  great 
majority  of  its  professors  ! 

We  cannot  admit  that  these  men  are  either  more  com- 
petent, or  more  unbiassed,  or  more  credible,  than  men 
who  with  the  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes,  make  it  a 
matter  of  eternal  consequence,  carefully  and  prayerfully 
to  study  the  word  of  God.  Nor  does  it  matter  to  us  what 
any  man's  testimony  is.  We  go  to  the  word  of  God. 
We  say  to  every  man — "  To  the  law  and  to  the  testi- 
mony." What  is  written  there  1  We  should  deem  it  no 
addition  to  the  ground  on  which  rests  our  faith,  if  all  the 
Baptists  in  the  world  should  come  over  and  bear  a  most 
hearty  and  decisive  testimony  of  their  opinion,  that 
gprinkling  is  baptism,  and  that  infants  are  to  be  baptized. 


100  A    REFUTATION  OF 


ABUSE  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Mr.  Woolsey  says,  p.  259,  that  infant  baptism  "  is  re- 
garded as  possessing  a  saving  power.  From  its  first  intro- 
duction to  this  day,  Pedobaptists  OF  ALL  NAMES  have 
ascribed  to  it  a  sanctifying  and  saving  importance.  Of  late 
years,  I  know,  when  so  much  light  has  been  reflected,  and 
so  many  invincible  arguments  urged  against  infant  baptism, 
and  against  its  saving  power,  there  has  been  a  modifica- 
tion. Some  Protestant  churches  say  but  little  about  its 
being  necessary  to  salvation." 

The  Congregationalists  of  New  England — to  say  nothing 
about  the  Presbyterians —will  deem  this  a  very  strange 
representation  of  their  faith  concerning   infant   baptism, 
With  regard  to  us,  at  least,  it  is  not  true.     We  have  not 
"  ascribed  to  it  a  sanctifying  and  saving  importance  :  we 
do  not  say  even  a  "  little  "  about  its  being  "  necessary  to 
salvation."     But  Mr.  Woolsey  goes  on,  p.  260,  to  speak 
of  the  "importance"  which  even  Protestant  Pedobaptists 
in  this  favored  land  attach  to  infant  baptism."     With- 
out changing  the  subject  at  all ;  without  the  slightest  inti- 
mation that  he  means  anybody  else  than  "  Protestant  Pedo- 
baptists  in   this  favored  land,"  he  says,  "  And  in  some 
places  even  the  dead  have  been  sprinkled,  with  the  hope 
of  benefiting  their  souls."     Is  it  possible  that  Mr.  Wool- 
sey thinks  such  a  charge  upon  Protestant  Pedobaptists,  in 
this  favored  land,  will  be  believed  without  some  proof;  or, 
at  least,  without  some  specification  of  the  time,  place,  and 
persons — when,  where,   and  by  whom  such  things  were 
done! 

But  all  these  allegations,  true  or  false,  are  mere  special 
pleading,  and  are  urged  upon  a  false  issue.  Granting  that 
infant  baptism  has  been  grossly  abused — granting  that  many 
have  most  superstitiously  attached  to  it  a  saving  import- 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  101 

ance — granting  that,  in  some  places,  even  the  dead  have 
been  sprinkled  with  the  hope  of  benefiting  their  souls — 
does  all  this  weigh  at  all  upon  the  question,  whether  in- 
fant baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  God  1  Shall  we  renounce 
what  we  hold  as  a  divine  institution  because  it  has,  been 
superstitiously  abused  1  Shall  we  burn  our  Bibles,  because 
some  have  "  wrested  the  Scriptures  to  their  own  destruc- 
tion 1 "  Such  allegations  of  superstition  and  abuse  are 
equally  valid  against  all  baptism  ;  for  the  time  was  when 
a  large  share  of  the  ancient  church  thought  baptism  a  re. 
generating  and  saving  ordinance  ;  and  so  thinks,  at  least, 
the  church  of  Rome  at  the  present  day.  Must  baptism^ 
therefore,  be  scouted  away,  from  the  church  of  God,  be- 
cause it  has  been  superstitiously  abused. 

INFANT  BAPTISM  AND  THE  RIGHT  OF  PRIVATE  JUDGMENT. 

Mr.  Woolsey  has  a  section,  p.  322,  under  the  following 
caption :  "  INFANT  BAPTISM  DEPRIVES  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE 

RIGHT  OF  PRIVATE  JUDGMENT,  AND  THEREFORE  IS  CONTRARY 
TO  THE  WORD  OF  GoD."' 

"  Who  but  admires,"  says  he,  "  those  noble  and  evan- 
gelical sentiments  of  the  framers  of  the  Declaration  of 
American  Independence,  "  That  all  men  are  created  equal ; 
that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  in- 
alienable rights ;  that  among  these  are,  life,  liberty,  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness." 

"  Our  parents,"  says  he,  "  have  not  the  right  to  fake 
advantage  of  our  infancy,  and  then  and  there  impose 
upon  us  what  shall  fetter  our  conscience  when  come  to 
years  of  accountability." 

Mr.  Woolsey,  in  his  zeal  against  infant  baptism,  has 
here  unconsciously  run  into  a  principle  from  whose  in- 
evitable consequences  he  would  doubtless  recoil  with  hor- 
ror. The  last  and  most  mischievous  from  which  infidelity 
9 


102  A   REFUTATION   OF 

has  assumed,  is— like  the  demagogues  of  the  French  Revo- 
lution-^ .to  raise  the  cry  of  " Liberty  and  Equality!" — 
liberty  and  equality,  not  simply  between  man  and  man, 
but  between  parents  and  their  children.  Their  notion  of 
liberty  and  equality  is,  that  children  are  to  be  left  to  grow 
up  with  nothing  to  bias  their  judgment,  or  to  bind  their 
conscience,  as  to  the  being  of  God — as  to  religious  truth 
or  duty — or  as  it  regards  a  future  state  and  a  day  of  judg- 
ment. To  teach  children  that  there  is  a  God,  is  "  taking 
advantage  of  their  infancy,"  and  "  destroying  their  inalien- 
able right"  of  deciding  for  themselves  ".when  they  come 
to  years  of  discretion !  "  To  teach  them  the  Catechism, 
or  to  teach  them  that  the  Bible  is  from  God,  is  "  then  and 
there  to  impose  upon  them  "  what  shall  bind  their  con- 
science to  that  faith  and  practice  in  religion  concerning 
which  they  had  not  the  liberty  of  choosing !  "  Nor  do 
these  infidel  demagogues  content  themselves  with  destroy- 
ing religion  alone,  children  must  be  left  to  judge,  when 
they  are  come  to  years  of  discretion,  with  no  early  bias  to 
the  contrary,  whether  there  shall  be  any  government  or 
law — whether  oaths  are  binding — and,  whether  falsehood, 
thieving,  fraud,  perjury,  and  murder,  are  not  just  as  virtu- 
ous and  praise-worthy  as  anything  else.  We  must  leave 
our  children  unbiassed  on  all  such  subjects.  It  is  not  for 
us  to  "  train  them  up  in  the  way  they  should  go ;"  at  least 
we  must  not  train  them  to  this  by  any  moral  principles 
that  will  bind  their  conscience  to  truth  and  righteousness ; 
for  this  is  to  destroy  their  "  inalienable  right "  of  judging 
for  themselves.  In  brief — we  must  teach  our  children  no- 
thing on  matters  of  truth  and  duty,  save  sheer  infidelity. 

But  Mr.  Woolsey  would  by  no  means  admit  of  our  ap- 
plication of  his  principle  to  such  an  extent  as  this.  .  On 
the  contrary,  he  declares,  p.  325,  "  As  soon  as  practicable 
the  juvenile  mind  should  be  imprinted  with  the  word  of 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  103 

God,  and  be  made  to  feel  the  weight  of  its  own  responsi- 
bility. Parents,  and  all  entrusted  with  the  care  of  children, 
are  under  the  most  solemn  obligations  to  c  bring  them  up 
in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.'  " 

How  does  Mr.  Woolsey  relieve  himself  from  the  appa- 
rent inconsistency  between  the  principle  which  he  has 
laid  down  and  the  precept  which  he  here  inculcates  1  He 
makes  a  distinction  between  the  externals  and  the  inter- 
nals of  religion. 

u  But,"  says  he,  "  to  infringe  upon  the  rights  of  con- 
science, in  relation  to  the  EXTERNALS  of  religion,  comes 
not  within  the  province  of  any  man."  What !  Does  no- 
thing "  bind  the  conscience,"  unless  it  be  something  be- 
longing to  the  externals  of  religion  1  What  ground,  in 
reason  or  in  Scripture,  for  making  the  externals  of  religion 
thus  pre-eminently  sacred  1  "  But,"  says  Mr.  Woolsey, 
"  to  sprinkle  an  infant  babe,  and  then,  as  that  child  is  verg- 
ing on  to  mature  years,  to  tell  it,  again  and  again,  that  it 
has  been  baptized,  is  one  of  the  most  despotic  acts  of 
which  man  is  capable.  It  is  tyranny  of  the  worst  kind — 
tyranny  in  religion  ! ! — tyranny  over  the  conscience  of  an 
accountable  being ! !  It  is  forestalling  that  faith  and  prac- 
tice which  belong  to  ripened  manhood,  by  an  ecclesiastic 
imposition,  practised  upon  the  subject  in  the  hour  of  un- 
conscious infancy  ! !  — It  is  overstepping  the  bounds  both  of 
reason  and  revelation ! ! 

It  appears  to  me  that  Mr.  Woolsey  here  builds  a  long 
and  fiery  argument  upon  a  distinction  without  a  difference  • 
Does  not  prayer  belong  to  the  externals  of  religion  1  Is  it 
"  despotism  "  and  tyranny  in  religion,  to  teach  a  child  to 
pray  I  Does  not  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  belong  to 
the  externals  of  religion  1  But  is  it  "  despotism  "  so  tho- 
roughly to  teach  the  child  to  "  remember  the  Sabbath-day 
to  keep  it  holy,"  as  to  make  it  binding  upon  his  conscience 


104  A   REFUTATION   OF 

when  he  comes  to  years  of  discretion  1  Attendance  upon 
public  worship  belongs  to  the  externals  of  religion  ;  but  is 
it  "  one  of  the  most  despotic  acts  of  which  man  is  capable," 
to  train  up  our  children  to  a  conscientious  attendance  upon 
the  public  worship  of  God  1 

It  is  difficult  for  me  to  understand  how  an  external  of 
religion  is  a  more  despotic  bond  upon  the  conscience  than 
an  infernal  principle :  how  it  should  be  a  greater  inter- 
ference with  the  rights  of  conscience  to  teach  a  child  that 
infant  baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  God,  than  to  teach  him 
to  hold  it  in  abhorrence  as  not  an  ordinance  of  God :  how 
it  should  be  despotism  to  teach  him  that  sprinkling  is 
scriptural  baptism,  more  than  it  should  be  despotism  to 
teach  him  that  immersion  is  scriptural  baptism.  If  we 
teach  our  children  any  thing  false  in  religion,  and  they 
discover  it  when  they  come  to  years  of  discretion,  it  is 
their  duty  to  throw  it  off:  nor  is  it  possible  for  me  to  con- 
ceive how  they  are  any  more  bound  in  conscience  by  an 
unscriptural  external  of  religion,  than  by  an  unscriptural 
'  article  of  faith. 

God,  of  old,  commanded  parents  to  circumcise  their 
children.  Did  He  command  them  to  do  that  which  was 
a  infringing  upon  the  rights  of  conscience  V'  Was  the 
circumcision  of  a  child  "one  of  the  most"  despotic  acts 
of  which  man  is  capable  1  Was  it  tyranny  in  religion  1 
And  did  not  circumcision  belong  as  truly  to  the  externals 
of  religion  as  baptism  1  How  would  it  have  sounded,  for 
a  Levite  set  to  instruct  the  people  in  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  had  he  said  to  the  fathers  and  mothers  in  Israel, 
**  The  table  of  the  ten  commandments  teach  to  your  child- 
ren diligently,  in  the  house  and  in  the  way ;  when  thou 
liest  down  and  when  thou  risest  up :  imprint  the  word  of 
God  upon  the  juvenile  rriind  c  from  its  earliest  dawn ;' — but 
circumcision !  that  belongs  to  the  externals  of  religion  ; 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  105 

and  *  to  infringe  upon  the  rights  of  conscience  in  RELA- 
TION TO  THE  EXTERNALS  of  religion,  comes  not  within  the 
province  of  any  man.'  '  Parents  have  not  a  right  to  take 
advantage  of  infancy,  and  then  and  there  impose  upon 
infants  what  shall  fetter  their  consciences  when  come  to 
years  of  accountability.'  *  To  circumcise'  an  unconscious 
babe,  and  then,  as  that  child  is  verging  on  to  mature  years, 
to  tell  it  again  and  again  that  it  has  been  '  circumcised,' 
is  one  of  the  most  despotic  acts  of  which  man  is  capa- 
ble 1" 

How  would  it  have  sounded  for  a  Levite,  set  to  teach 
the  people  knowledge,  had  he  begun  to  harangue  the 
children,  with  regard  to  circumcision,  in  the  words  which 
Mr.  Woolsey  has  employed  with  regard  to  infant  baptism  1 
"  Nothing  can  be  more  foreign"  to  Judaism  "  than  to  de- 
prive us  of  such  liberty,  either  by  despotic  power,  or  by 
taking  advantage  of  us  at  a  time  when  we  are  not  aware 
of  what  is  being  imposed  upon  us."  What  would  have 
been  thought  of  that  Levite,  had  he  addressed  those  who 
had  broken  away  from  the  covenant  of  circumcision  in 
the  words  which  Mr.  Woolsey  has  spoken  of  those  who 
have  renounced  their  infant  baptism :  "  Some  there  are, 
who,  triumphing  over  all  opposing  obstacles,  assert  their 
rights — their  liberty  of  conscience  in  things  of  religion"-— 
"  fearless  of  what  man  can  do  unto  them.  But  others, 
less  courageous,  are  held  in  bondage." — "  To  such  let  me 
say,"  *  *  *  "  No  one  has  a  right  to  impose  upon  you 
any  act  of  religious  worship  without  consulting  your 
pleasure."  Does  Mr.  Woolsey  mean  to  go  as  far  as  to 
say  that  no  man  should  "  command  his  household  after 
him — to  keep  the  Sabbath  day,  or  to  attend  upon  the 
worship  of  God — unless  he  has  first  consulted  his  child 
whether  it  be  his  'pleasure'  to  be  trained  up  like  a 
heathen,  or  in  the  fear  of  God  V  But  let  us  listen  iiir- 
9* 


106  A   REFUTATION   OF 

ther.  "  Nor  should  children  feel  themselves  under  the 
slightest  obligations  to  be  governed  by  what  their  par' 
mis  did  to  them  in  inrancy" 

By  using  the  words  "  TO  them,"  instead  of  "  FOR  them," 
Mr.  Woolsey  here  artfully  leads  the  minds  of  the  young 
to  contemplate  the  meaning  and  importance  of  their  bap- 
tism as  lying  in  the  act  done  fo  them,  instead  of  lying  in 
the  covenant  claimed  for  them ;  the  obligations  of  the 
parent  acknowledged  and  assumed,  and  the  import  of  the 
baptism  as  a  seal  by  which  God  claims  that  child  as  his 
servant,  and  challenges  of  him  forever  the  love  and  rev- 
erence  which    he  owes  to    his    father's  covenant    God. 
Mr.  Woolsey  would  exhort  our  children  to  consider  their 
parents  as  tyrants  and  usurpers  ;  to  regard  their  baptism 
as  the  imposition  of  a  burden  ;  to  reject  the  covenant  and 
Us  promised  blessings ;  to  cast  away  these  solemn  cords 
of  duty  from  them ;  and  to  do  what  in  them  lies,  that  a 
father's  faith,  and  a  mother's  prayers  and  tears,  and  all  our 
solemn  admonitions  to  our  children, — so  far  as  that  faith, 
those  prayers,  and  admonitions  pertain  to  the  covenant  of 
God, — may  all  be  defeated,  and  entirely  cast  away.     To 
believing  parents,  who  have  humbly  claimed  for  their 
children  the  seal  of  their  covenant,  I  would  say,  can  you, 
in  faithfulness  to  your  covenant,  or  without  perilling  your 
fondest  hopes,  abet  your  children  in  waiting  upon  such 
instructions  as  these  1     Mr.  Woolsey  has  at  least  done  us 
and  our  children  this  service  :  He  has  given  us  full  warn- 
ing that,  by  means  like  these, — by  ridiculing  infant  bap- 
tism as  popery — by  denouncing  it  as  tyranny — by  exhort- 
ing our  children  to  break  away  from  the  instructions  and 
covenant  of  their  fathers, — he  will  endeavor  to  undermine 
and  defeat  the  influence  of  parental  instructions,  and  turn 
away  our  children  from  what  we  hold  dearer  than  life — 
the  covenant  of  our  God. 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  107 

Mr.  Woolsey  lingers  long  and  fondly  upon  this  theme. 
He  rings  the  changes  upon  the  words  "liberty,"  "rights/' 
"tyranny,"  "despotism,"  "Church  and  State;"  as  though 
these  cant  phrases,  by  which  demagogues  have  so  long 
appealed  to  the  vilest  passions  of  humanity,  and  which 
have  been  used  till  they  are  well  nigh  worn  out  amid  the 
strife  of  party  politics,  could  have  the  least  possible  bear- 
ing upon  the  question  whether  infant  baptism  is  of  scrip- 
tural authority ,  or  the  least  possible  influence  in  persuad- 
ing us  to  abandon  the  truth  and  ordinances  which  we  hold 
as  most  undoubtedly  the  truth  and  the  ordinances  of  God. 
Thus,  p.  328,  he  stigmatizes  the  practice  of  infant  bap- 
tism as  tending  "  equally  to  monarchy  and  superstition  ; 
and  alike  unscriptural  and  unfriendly  both  to  true  religion 
and  civil  liberty"     He  declares,  p.  329,   that,  by  the 
practice  of  infant  baptism,  "  the  foundation  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty  is  greatly  endangered,  and  must  eventu- 
ally, in  this  country,  as  it  has  done  in  all  other  countries, 
give  place  to  a  full  ecclesiastical  and  legal  establish- 
ment"     He  goes  on  in  enforcement  of  the  same  argu- 
ment, p.  330,  "  At  no  period  of  American  independence 
has  there  been  greater  occasion  for  alarm  respecting  our 
free  institutions  and  religious  privileges,  than  at  the  pres- 
ent time."     He  mingles  Protestants  and  Papists  together 
in  this  matter  ;  alarms  the  fears  of  his  hearers  concerning 
the  efforts  of  the  Papal  church  to  subvert  our  free  institu- 
tions, and  to  build  up  a  Romish  church  and  state  estab- 
lishment ;  and  then  tries  to  transfer  those  fears,  so  as  to 
make  them  bear  against  infant  baptism.     It  is  not  against 
popery,  as  popery,  that  he  is  arguing ;  but  he  brings  in 
the  subject  of  popery  to  make  it  bear  against  infant  bap- 
tism.    "  Think  not,"  says  he,  "  that  I  am  sounding  a  false 
tocsin.     Nay,  this  is  no  unnecessary  alarm.     It  is  a  so- 
ber and  fearful  reality :" — and  finally  winds  off  this  long 


108  A   REFUTATION   OF 

and  loud  alarum  by  this  conclusion  :  "  It  is  to  the  interest 
of  Christianity,  generally,  that  infant  baptism  be  laid  aside 
by  all  the  followers  of  the  Lamb  of  God." 

Js  it  possible  that  he  thinks  that  infant  baptism  "must 
eventually,  in  this  country,  give  place  to  a  full  ecclesiasti- 
cal and  legal  establishment  1"  Is  it  possible  that  he  thinks 
there  can  be  the  least  danger  of  uniting  church  and  state 
in  this  American  land  ?  Which  sect  of  Protestants  enter- 
tains the  horrid  design  1  Which  will  submit  to  have  a 
sister  denomination  elevated  into  the  rank  and  privilege 
of  a  national  establishment  1  Is  it  the  Methodist,  the 
Congregational,  the  Presbyterian,  or  the  Dutch  Reformed, 
or  the  Lutheran  1  Or  is  it  one  of  those  denominations 
which  respectively  claim  to  be  the  only  true  church,  and 
take  it  upon  themselves  to  unchurch, — and  two  of  them, 
the  Papal  and  the  Baptist,  to  EXCOMMUNICATE, — every 
other  body  of  Christians,  and  every  other  individual 
Christian,  under  heaven  1  As  for  the  Baptist  church,  we 
trust  they  have  no  such  design,  although  they  are  so  con- 
fidently looking  forward  and  hastening  toward  the  day, 
when  all  other  denominations  shall  be  swallowed  up  by 
the  Baptist.  We  suspect  them  of  no  design  to  unite 
church  and  state ;  and  we  should  certainly  deem  it  idle 
to  fear  such  an  event,  if  we  could  suspect  such  a  design. 
As  for  the  Papal  church,  let  Mr.  Woolsey  rest  assured, 
that  Protestant  Pedobaptists  would,  to  a  man,  sooner  suffer 
the  man  of  sin  to  lay  our  beloved  land  waste  without  in- 
habitant, than  ever  submit  to  receive  his  yoke  upon  our 
necks,  or  see  it  forced  upon  the  necks  of  our  brethren. 

It  certainly  becomes  every  lover  of  truth,  godliness, 
and  freedom  in  this  land,  to  watch  narrowly  and  guard 
well  against  the  insidious  approaches,  the  dreadful  de- 
signs, and  the  destructive  tendencies  of  Popery.  But  is 
it  possible  that  Mr.  Woolsey  thinks  that  our  rejecting  infant 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  109 

baptism  could  in  any  measure  stay  the  progress  of  the  Pa- 
pal church  in  these  United  States  1  Would  he  really  ad- 
vise us  to  practice  according  to  the  conclusions  of  such  a 
logic  as  this  : — "  We  fear  popery,  and  therefore  we  will 
renounce  what  we  hold  most  dear  and  sacred  as  an  ordi- 
nance enjoined  upon  us  by  God  1" 

Is  Mr.  Woolsey  ignorant  that  this  political  hue  and  cry 
which  he  has  raised  against  infant  baptism,  is  the  same 
that  infidels  aud  disorganizes  have  wielded  against  all  re- 
ligion in  general,  and  more  especially  against  the  Christian 
religion  1  Is  Mr.  Woolsey  ignorant  that  such  arguments 
weigh  nothing  at  all  upon  the  question,  "  What  is  true  ; 
and  what  ordinances  are.  sanctioned  by  the  authority  of 
God  1"  Would  he,  in  earnest,  teach  Christians  to  lay  aside 
doctrines  and  ordinances  which  they  hold  as  the  truth,  and 
the  ordinances  of  God,  because  unbelievers  assail  them  as 
"  unfriendly  to  liberty,  and  tending  to  promote  a  union  of 
church  and  state  1" 

INFANT    BAPTISM    AND    SOCINIANISM. 

Mr.  Woolsey  endeavors  to  brjing  a  further  prejudice 
to  bear  against  infant  baptism,  by  alledging  that  "  vast 
multitudes  of  Pedobaptists,  both  in  England  and  in  the 
United  States  have  rejected  the  divinity  of  Jesus  and  em- 
braced Deism." 

"  Such  is  the  appalling  fact,"  says  he  concerning  the 
English  Presbyterians,  "  That  entire  body  of  Christians 
in  England  have  become  skeptical  in  their  views  respect- 
ing almost  every  doctrine  of  our  holy  religion  ;  but  es- 
pecially have  they  embraced  deistical  sentiments.  No 
longer  is  Jesus  to  them  a  Divine  Savior.  They  have  re- 
jected him,  as  did  the  Jews  before  them."*  "  And  how 

*  That  "  entire  body" — is  but  a  little   handful,  the  pitiful  rena 
nant  of  a  sect,  the  body  of  whose  successors  are  orthodox  and  Con- 
gregationaliste. 


110  A  EEFUTATION   OF 

painful  is  the  fact,"  he  adds,  "  that  very  many  of  the  Con- 
gregationalists  of  New  England  have  embraced  Socinian- 
ism.  Where  but  a  few  years  since  Christ  was  proclaimed 
as  a  Divine  Savior,  now  his  Divinity  is  vilified  and 
held  up  to  the  ridicule  of  infidelity." 

Mr.  Woolsey  intends  to  have  these  things  weigh  against 
the  baptism  of  infants,  and  adduces  them  for  that  purpose  ; 
and  yet,  "  Willing  to  wound,  but  yet  afraid  to  strike,"  he 
hesitates  to  affirm  that  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  was  the 
cause  of  this  apostacy.  He  introduces  it  by  saying,  "  How 
far  the  reasoning  in  favor  of  infant  baptism  has  prepared 
the  way  for  so  many,  of  late  years,  to  deny  the  Divine  na- 
ture of  our  Lord  and  Savior  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  know." 
This  is  bringing  a  gun  into  the  field  which  he  is  unwilling 
to  stand  by.  It  is  insinuating  an  argument  for  which  he 
is  afraid  to  be  responsible.  Such  an  artifice  may  expose  a 
consciousness  both  of  weakness,  and  of  a  lack  of  sound  ar- 
gument ;  but  we  cannot  allow  it  to  afford  the  designed  safe 
retreat.  Can  Mr.  Woolsey  point  out  any  sort  of  connec- 
tion between  infant  baptism  and  Socinianism, — such  as 
shall  make  the  former  a  cause  of  the  latter  1  Were  the 
English  Presbyterians  the  only  men  in  Old  England  who 
practised  infant  baptism  1  Did  not  the  Church  of  England 
practise  it,  and  lay  vastly  more  stress  upon  it  than  did  ever 
the  English  Presbyterians  1  Did  not  the  Wesleyans  prac- 
tise it  1  Did  not  the  numerous  Independents  and  Congre- 
gationalists  of  England  and  Wales  practise  it  1  How  came 
this  universal  cause  to  be  so  limited  in  its  operation  ?.  Pray 
tell.  Has  infant  baptism  in  these  United  States  always  been 
confined  to  Massachusetts  1  What  is  there  in  the  differ- 
ence of  latitude  or  longitude  that  should  make  the  virus 
work  in  Massachusetts,  and  hem  it  in  by  the  State  line  so 
that  though  spread  ever  so  abundantly  abroad,  South, 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  Ill 

North,  and  West, — the  poison  should  still  work  percepti- 
bly scarce  any  where  else  than  in  Massachusetts  1  What 
a  dearth  of  argument  is  this,  when  one,  in  searching  for 
matter  to  urge  against  infant  baptism,  is  compelled  to  resort 
to  such  miserable  logic,  such  groundless  appeals  to  preju- 
dice as  this !  Does  Mr.  Woolsey  think  that  if  this  contro- 
versy must  descend  to  such  a  mode  of  argument,  that 
there  are  no  materials  to  be  used  against  immersionists,  with 
equal  justice  and  with  far  greater  potency  1  Are  there  no 
Campbellite  Baptists  in  the  land,— basing  the  entire  fabric 
of  personal  religion  on  immersion,  and  a  dead  faith— a 
bare  historical  belief  of  the  events  of  the  Gospel  history  ? 
Are  there  no  such  beings  as  Jlntinomian  Baptists  1  Are 
there  no  Mormon  Baptists  1  Are  there  no  Baptists  oppos- 
ed to  Temperance,  Tract,  Bible,  and  Missionary  societies 
and  efforts  \  We  scorn  to  use  such  things  for  the  purpose 
of  exciting  a  prejudice  against  those  evangelical  Christians 
whom  we  love  to  call  our  Baptist  brethren.  But  if  we 
could  descend  to  use  such  things  in  argument,  and  even 
make  out  and  trace  distinctly  the  process  from  stickling  so 
much  for  the  mere  mode  of  an  ordinance  to  making  EVERY 
THING  of  an  ordinance,  would  our  Baptist  brethren  receive 
it  in  argument  for  giving  up  that  form  of  the  ordinance 
which  they  hold  as  required  by  the  command  of  God  \ 


Mr.  Woolsey  thus  concludes  his  argument  against  infant 
baptism.  I  shall  simply  quote  it,  and  let  it  speak  for  it- 
self. Whatever  of  cogency  there  is  in  it,  let  it  go  altogeth- 
er unimpaired.  Whatever  of  modesty  there  is  in  it; 
whatever  of  respect  for  the  wise  and  good  of  nine-tenths 
of  the  Protestant  Christian  world,  who  have  examined  the 
subject  as  prayerfully  and  as  long  as  Mr.  Woolsey,  and 
yet, differ  from  him  in  their  faith  and  practice, — let  all  this 


112  A    REFUTATION   OF 

appear  in  its  untarnished  glory  and  its  unblemished  loveli- 
ness. I  shall  simply  let  Mr.  Woolsey  speak  in  his  own 
language,  and  in  his  very  words. 

"  What  part  of  parental  duty  is  it,  for  a  father  and 
mother  to  have  a  little  water  sprinkled  upon  the  face  of 
an  unknowing,  unconscious  babe,  and  then  by  prayers  and 
daily  effort  endeavor  to  make  that  babe,  when  grown  to 
years,  believe  that  it  has  been  baptized  1  c  Who  hath  re- 
quired .this  at  your  hands  V 

"  Where  do  such  parents, — where  do  Pedobaptist  minis- 
ters, get  a  warrant  for  preventing  rational,  accountable  be- 
ings acting  for  themselves  ?  It  is  time  indeed,  that  such 
practices,  so  well  suited  to  the  dark  ages,  but  illy  becoming 
the  nineteenth  century,  were  abandoned  by  all  respecting 
the  Bible  as  a  revelation  from  God. 

"  Shall  not  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  soon  be  willing  to 
lay  aside  a  practice  so  perfectly  puerile  and  unscriptural  1 
Can  it  be  ideal  to  anticipate  a  thing  so  just  in  itself,  and  so 
much  to  be  desired." 

CLAIMS  OF  BAPTISTS  NOT  TO  BELONG  TO  THE  PROTKSTANT 
FAMILY. 

Mr.  Woolsey  says,  p.  63,  "  Baptists,  in  every  age  of  the 
Christian  Church,  have  held  and  maintained,  first  against 
the  corruptions  and  innovations  of  the  Romish  Church,  and 
latterly  against  those  who  seceded  from  her,"  &c.  &c. 

On  p.  26  he  says,  "  Their  blood  cries  from  the  earth  in 
every  land  where  the  combined  powers  of  church  and  state 
could  be  brought  to  bear  against  them  for  not  submitting 
to  the  application  of  baptism  to  infants  ;  the  saving  effi- 
cacy of  baptism  ;  and  the  union  of  church  and  stale" 
He  then  quotes  the  poet  Montgomery  for  'the  purpose  of 
claiming  as  Baptists  the  little  flock  who  adhered  to  the 
truth  when, 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  113 

**  Among  Bohemian  mountains  truth  Retired 

"  When  Europe  languished  in  barbarian  gloom." 

In  the  same  manner  the  American  and  Foreign  (Bap- 
tist) Bible  Society,  say,  p.  31,  of  their  Report  for  1840, 
concerning  the  Waldenses.  "  They  are  our  brethren,  the 
descendants  of  these  heroic  Baptists  who  maintained  the 
truth  inviolate  amid  the  rigors  of  a  fierce  persecution, 
while  the  smoke  of  their  burning  blood  went  up  from  the 
valleys  of  Piedmont,  as  an  acceptable  offering  unto  God." 
Again  in  the  same  Report,  p.  75.  "  Though  not  by  birth 
of  the  Protestant  family,  we  are  left,  strange  as  it  may 
appear,  the  sole  representatives  of  the  great  Protestan 
principle,fthat  the  Bible  alone,  as  it  came  from  God,  is  the 
only  binding  authority  in  matters  of  faith  and  conscience." 

That  the  Baptists  alone  hold  to  the  great  Protestant 
principle,  that  the  Bible  alone,  as  it  came  from  God,  is  the 
only  binding  authority  in  matters  of  faith  and  conscience, 
every  Presbyterian  and  Congregationalist  in  the  land,  to  say 
nothing  of  other  denominations,  will  know  and  feel  to  be 
a  grievous  untruth.  But  it  is  not  with  that  part  of  these 
high  pretensions  that  I  have  now  to  do.  I  believe  that  his- 
tory by  no  means  bears  out  Mr.  Woolsey  in  the  assertion 
that  the  Waldenses  were  persecuted  for  the  three  things 
which  he  alledges  as  the  cause  why  so  much  blood  of  Bap- 
tist's "  cries  from  the  earth  in  every  land."  It  was  not  for 
refusing  "  the  application  of  baptism  to  infants ;"  nor  for 
denying  "  the  saving  efficacy  of  baptism,"  nor  for  oppos- 
ing "  the  union  of  church  and  state,"  that  even  the  fero- 
cious Anabaptists  fell  under  the  vengeance  of  the  civil 
power. 

Afl  for  the  antiquity  of  the  Baptist  denomination,  it  is  a 
matter  of  history,  which  I  believe  cannot  be  successfully 
disputed,  that  till  the  rise  of  the  Anabaptists  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  no  sect  or  body  of  men  was  known  who 
JO 


114  A   REFUTATION   OF 

held  or  pretended  that  immersion  was  essential  to  bap- 
tism. That  the  Waldenses,  those  far  famed  witnesses  and  mar- 
tyrs for  the  truth,  were  Pedobaptists,  is  a  truth  as  well 
established  as  any  truth  in  the  whole  range  of  history.  It 
was  for  nothing  peculiar  to  Baptists  in  distinction  from 
other  Protestants,  that  they  were  persecuted.  In  every 
thing  in  which  our  Baptist  brethren  are  peculiar ;  their  ex- 
clusive immersion ;  their  rejection  of  infant  baptism,  and  their 
close  communion,  they  are  of  recent  date,  and  absolutely 
a  new  sect  in  the  Christian  world. 

THE    ASSEMBLY    OF    DIVINES. 

A  tract,  published  by  the  Baptist  General  Tract  Society, 
widely  circulated,  still  in  circulation,  and  not,  so  far  as  I 
am  informed,  as  yet  either  suppressed  or  corrected  by  the 
society,  asserts,  that  "  As  late  as  1643,  in  the  Assembly  of 
Divines  at  Westminster,  sprinkling  was  substituted  for  im- 
mersion by  a  majority  of  one — 25  voted  for  sprinkling,  24 
for  immersion."  The  import  and  design  of  the  sentence 
is  to  make  people  believe  that  immersion  had  been  the 
cdmmon  mode  in  England,  and  that  sprinkling  was  substi- 
tuted for  it  by  the  Assembly  of  Divines,  on  a  majority  of 
one,  in  which  24  voted  for  immersion  in  opposition  to 
sprinkling. 

This  has  been  a  very  common  representation  of  the 
matter  by  our  Baptist  brethren.  It  has  been  reiterated 
from  the  pulpit  and  the  press.  When  the  error  has  been 
pointed  out,  the  representation  has  been  vehemently  af- 
firmed to  be  true. 

In  the  appendix  to  his  work  Mr.  Woolsey  has  copied 
the  Journal  of  Dr.  Lightfoot  touching  this  action  of  the 
Assembly  of  Divines ;  which  journal,  he  says,  he  has  "  sub- 
jected himself  to  no  little  expense  to  secure  ;" — whether 
for  the  purpose  of  correcting  the  common  Baptist  repre- 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  115 

sentation,  or  of  sustaining  it,  every  one  must  judge  for 
himself. 
From  the  journal  of  Lightfoot  it  appears, 

1.  That  the  matter  in  dispute  was,  "  sprinkling  being 
granted,  whether  dipping  SHOULD  BE  TOLERATED  WITH  IT." 
This  was  the  form,  and  the  reality,  of  the  question  whe- 
ther to  dip  or  sprinkle"     The  proposition,   " It  is  lawful 
and  sufficient  to  besprinkle  the  child,"  had  been  canvassed 
and  was  ready  to  vote.     But  Dr.  Lightfoot  "  spoke  against 
it  as  being  very  unfit  to  vote  that  it  is  lawful  to  sprinkle 
when  every  one  grants  it."    Whereupon  it  was  fallen  upon, 
sprinkling  being  granted,  whether  dipping  should  be  tole- 
rated with  it."  And  here,  says  Lightfoot,  "  we  fell  upon  a 
large  and  long  discourse  whether  dipping  was  essential,  or 
used  in  the  first  institution,  or  in  the  Jews'  custom." 

2.  It  was  not  true  that  24  voted  for  immersion,  as  opposed 
to  sprinkling;  but,  as  Dr.  Lightfoot  says,  "  so  many  were 
unwilling  to  hare  dipping  EXCLUDED,  that  the  votes  came 
to  an  equality  within  one."     It  was  not  that  they  wished 
immersion  to  be  adopted,  or  even  recommended  in  the 
Directory  ;  but  simply  that  the  directory  might  not  pro- 
hibit immersion  to  those  who  should  prefer  it.     When  the 
proposition  was  put  in  such  a  shape  as  not  to  make  dip- 
ping unlawful,  the  Assembly  with  great  unanimity ',  de- 
clared in  their  Directory  that  for  the  mode  of  baptizing,  it 
is  "  not  only  lawful  but  ALSO  SUFFICIENT,  and  MOST  EX- 
PEDIENT to  be  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  water  on  the  face  of 
the  child,  without  adding  any  other  ceremony." 

3.  Nothing  at  all  was  finally  determined  on  that  vote  of 
24  to  25.     "  After  that  vote,"  Lightfoot  says,  "  when  we 
had  done  all  we  concluded  nothing  about  it,  but  the  busi- 
ness was  recommitted." 

On  the  following  points,  then,  the  statement  of  the  tract 
in  question  is  not  true : 


116  A    REFUTATION    OF 

1.  It  is  not  true,  that  sprinkling  was  substituted  for  im- 
mersion by  the  Assembly  of  Divines. 

2.  It  is  not  true,  that  24  voted  for  immersion  and  25  for 
sprinkling,  as  opposing  or  preferring  sprinkling  to  immer- 
sion.    All  they  wanted  was,  not  to  txclude  dipping  as  un- 
lawful ;  and  as  soon  as  this  point  was  yielded  them,  they 
"with  great  unanimity" — concurred  in  the  vote  declaring 
sprinkling  to   be    '  lawful,'  "  sufficient  and  most   expe- 
dient." 

3.  It  is  not  true,  that  the  assembly  finally  determined 
any  thing  as  touching  this  matter  by  a  majority  of  one. 

And  now  when  these  incorrect  statements  have  been 
published  by  the  Baptist  General  Tract  Society  through- 
out the  country,  and  reiterated,  and  reiterated  again  from 
the  pulpit  and  the  press ;  and  when  disputed,  vehemently 
re-affirmed  to  be  the  truth  ;  what  does  Mr.  Woolsey  do 
when  he  has  at  last  discovered  what  the  truth  is  in  this 
matter]  Hear  him,  p.  350.  "My  Baptist  brethren 
have  been  betrayed  into  a  slight  mistake,  by  reason  of 
their  quoting  Pedobaptist  authors  who  have  in  like  manner 
been  mistaken."  "My  Baptist  brethren!"  Does  the 
matter  come  no  nearer  home  1  "  Jl  slight  mistake  !"  Is 
this  all!  "Betrayed  into  it!"  ^By  reason  of  their 
quoting  Pedobaptist  authors  !"  What  Pedobaptist  authors  1 
But  hear  him  further.  "  Justice  to  that  devoted  man  of 
God,  the  late  Rev.  Dr.  Davis,  of  Hartford,  who  wrote  the 
tract  containing  the  statement  said  to  be  '  vamped  upj  re- 
quires me  to  remark  that  the  case  as  reported  by  Dr. 
Lightfoot,  is  even  worse  than  it  has  been  represented." 

With  Rev.  Dr.  Davis,  of  Hartford,  we  have  nothing  to 
do,  any  more  than  with  the  pen  with  which  he  wrote  it, 
or  than  with  the  types  with  which  it  was  printed.  It  was 
I  trust,  in  Dr.  Davis  an  error.  I  know  not  that  it  was  ev- 
er pointed  out  to  him.  The  book  which  speaks  of  the 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  117 

story  as  " vamped  up"  does  not,  therefore,  even  mention 
his  name.  It  complains  of  the  Baptist  General  Tract  So- 
ciety, which  continued  to  circulate  that  tract ;  and  of  the 
papers  and  ministers  who  continued  to  circulate  the  state- 
ment in  question  as  the  truth,  long  after  Dr.  Miller,  (to  say 
nothing  of  others,)  had  published  a  refutation  of  the  state- 
ment to  the  world. 

Let  there  be  no  slipping  aside  from  the  question,  on  the 
part  of  the  Baptist  General  Tract  Society,  by  taking  refuge 
behind  the  name  of  Dr.  Davis.  Let  there  be  no  evading 
the  responsibility  of  that  widely  circulated  publication*  by 
appealing  to  the  sympathy  of  people  for  "  that  devoted 
man  of  God,"  as  though  we  had  assailed  his  "  reputation," 
or  even  mentioned  his  name ;  unless  it  be  true  that  corpo- 
rations have  no  souls,"  and  that  ministers  and  church 
members  may  falsify  the  records  of  history,  and  then  avoid 
all  manner  of  responsibility,  provided  that  they  only  be 
banded  together  in  a  society.  Let  the  Baptist  General  Tract 
Society  answer  for  the  matter.  Let  them  suppress  that 
tract,  or  alter  it  so  as  to  make  it  accord  with  the  truth ; 
and  give  notice  of  their  doing  with  suitable  acknowledg- 
ment to  the  Christian  world. 

Does  Mr.  Woolsey  think  it  any  clearing  up  of  this  mat- 
ter to  say,  that  "  The  case  as  reported  by  Dr.  Lightfoot 
is  even  worse  than  has  been  represented  1"  That  is  not 
the  question  :  but,  whether  the  representation  is  true.  To 
justify  this  language  of  Mr.  Woolsey — to  make  it  any 
thing  but  deceptive,  it  should  be  shown,  first,  that  the  rep- 
resentation was  true  :  then,  secondly,  it  might  have  been 
lawful  to  show  that  the  affair  was  even  worse  than  the 
representation.  To  say  nakedly  and  simply  "  It  was  even 
worse  than  it  has  been  represented,"  implies  an  affirma- 
tion of  the  truth  so  far  as  represented.  Say,  if  you  please, 
that  the  Assembly  of  Divines  deserved  the  epithet  of  devils 
10* 


118  A   REFUTATION   OF 

incarnate  :  if  it  be  just  to  say  so,  show  it  to  be  just,  and  we 
have  nothing  to  reply.  But  suppose  this  were  done ; 
what  is  all  this  to  the  question  whether  "  sprinkling  was 
substituted  for  immersion  by  the  Assembly  of  Divines  ; 
and  that  upon  a  bare  majority  of  one  V 

"  Moreover  I  may  add,"  says  Mr.  Woolsey,  "  that  Bap- 
tists no  where  have  represented  that  immersion  was  the 
entire  mode  at  the  time  when  the  Assembly  convened." 
Mr.  Woolsey  is  indeed  very  ingenious  in  devising  ways  to 
"  come  off"  from  the  difficulty  without  an  ingenuous  con- 
fession. Does  he  intend  to  deny  that  the  Baptists  have 
represented,  that  as  late  as  1643,  "  Sprinkling  was  substi- 
tuted for  immersion,  on  a  majority  of  one  by  the  Assembly 
of  Divines  at  Westminster  T'  Does  he  intend  to  deny 
this  1  or  does  he  make  this  remark  for  the  purpose  of  cre- 
ating a  diversion  which  shall  allow  the  Baptist  General 
Tract  Society  to  retreat  from  their  position  without  ac- 
knowledging their  fault  1 

THE    AMERICAN    BIBLE    SOCIETY. 

The  American  Bible  Society  was  organized  in  1816  by 
delegates  of  several  denominations  from  various  sections  of 
the  country.  Its  object  was  "  The  dissemination  of  the 
Scriptures  in  received  versions  where  they  exist,  and  in 
the  most  faithful,  where  they  may  be  required."  What- 
ever was  to  be  done  by  the  society  was  that,  and  THAT 
ALONE  which,  all  could  unite  in  doing.  The  Scriptures 
were  to  be  circulated  without  note  or  comment.  While 
all  could  agree  in  this,  it  was  beyond  hope  that  all  could 
be  brought  to  agree  as  to  the  character  of  any  explanatory 
appendages :  least  of  all  to  denominational  or  sectarian 
appendages.  AU  agreed  in  our  common  English  version. 
No  one  pretended  that  it  ^as  an  E^isco^al  Bible,  a  Bap- 
tist Bible,  a  Presbyterian  Bible,  a  Methodist  Bible,  a  Qua- 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  119 

ker  Bible,  or  a  Congregational  Bible,  or  a  Dutch  Reform, 
ed  Bible,  or  a  Lutheran  Bible.  All,  every  where,  who 
spoke  the  English  tongue,  regarded  it  as  THE  HOLY 
BIBLE;  the  Bible  of  the  English  language.  There 
were,  moreover,  several  other  old  versions,  such  as  the 
German,  the  Danish,  the  Swedish,  and  several  others  which 
no  one  pretended  to  call  sectarian.  Our  Baptist  breth- 
ren think  that  some  of  these  versions  particularly  favor 
them:  we  think  otherwise;  with  what  reason  I  have 
shown.  At  all  events,  all  denominations  agreed  in  the 
use  of  them,  and  this  is  all  that  the  American  Bible  Socie- 
ty asks  of  any  version. 

But  new  versions  were  to  be  made ;  and  these  versions 
are  to  be  "the  most  faithful."  Who  is  to  be  the  judge  for 
this  Society  what  versions  are  the  most  faithful  1  Did  the  So- 
ciety ever  install  the  Baptists,  or  the  Methodists,  or  the  Pres- 
byterians, as  the  infallible  arbiters,  to  judge  for  all  the  rest, 
and  contrary  to  the  judgment  of  all  the  rest,  what  is  the 
most  faithful  version  1  Agreeing  upon  the  basis  of  circu- 
lating the  Bible  without  note  or  comment,  could  it  be  pre- 
sumed that  they  ever  intended  to  bind  themselves  to  cir- 
culate and  use  in  common  a  Bible,  which,  though  not  ac- 
companied by  sectarian  comments,  should  be  so  translated 
as  to  make  it  sectarian  in  the  very  text ;  a  Bible  which 
one  denomination  alone  could  use,  and  which  all  denomi- 
nations represented  in  the  Society,  save  one,  agree  in  con- 
sidering as  an  alteration  and  corruption  of  the  word  of 
God  1  What  version,  in  the  view  of  a  society  composed 
of  all  these  denominations,  is  to  be  judged  most  faithful ! 
"  Not  that  certainly  which  conveys  the  peculiar  tenets  of 
this  or  thatdenommaticn,  while  it  misstates  the  views  of 
others,  and  is  in  their  view  unfaithful" 

If  any  denomination  wishes  to  circulate  a  denomina- 


120  A   REFUTATION   OF 

tional  comment,  let  the  denomination  do  it.  The  Society 
cannot  do  it  without  violating  the  compact  on  which  tha 
Society  is  founded.  If  a  denomination  see  fit  to  issue  a 
sectarian  version  in  which  the  text  shall  be  so  moulded  as 
to  express  their  views  and  condemn  the  views  of  all  others, 
let  them  do  it :  the  Society  is  not  their  judge — let  them  do 
it,  and  answer  it  to  their  own  conscience  and  to  God.  But 
by  what  prerogative  can  they  claim  a  right  to  force  such  a 
version  upon  others,  or  ask  the  Society  to  adopt  and  circu- 
late a  version  which  no  denomination  represented  in  the 
Society  save  the  Baptists  can  use  1 

The  case,  it  seems  to  me,  is  so  plain  as  to  render 
further  argument  needless.  The  Board  of  Managers  very 
properly  determined  "  That  in  appropriating  money  for 
translating,  printing,  or  distributing  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures in  foreign  languages,  the  managers  feel  at  liberty  to 
encourage  only  such  versions  as  conform  in  the  principles 
of  their  translation  to  the  common  English  version,  at  least 
so  far  that  all  the  religious  denominations  represented  in 
t'his  society  can  consistently  use  and  circulate  said  ver- 
sions in  their  several  schools  and  communities" 

The  society  pass  no  judgment  upon  this  or  that  sectarian 
version :  they  allow  every  body  else  in  the  wide  world  to 
judge  for  themselves, — and  to  act  by  other  organizations  or 
in  other  modes— just  as  they  please ;  they  only  determine 
for  themselves,  that  it  is  THEIR  duty  to  circulate  ver- 
sions in  which  all  the  denominations  represented  in  the  so- 
ciety can  unite  in  circulating. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  endeavor  to  conjure  up  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  adhering  to  this  principle.  They  harp  upon 
"  the  improbability  of  finding  terms  which  shall"  render 
versions  such  as  "  contain  no  words  objectionable  to  the 
different  denominations  of  Christians  composing  the  Bible 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  121 

Society."  *  They  intimate  that  other  terms  may  be  dis- 
puted, and  therefore,  have  to  be  transferred ; — that  "  taking 
the  oversight,"  may  be  expressed  by  a  word  transferred  from 
the  Greek  " episcopising  them:" — that  the  "gifts  and 
calling"  of  God — "  may  be  made  to  read  in  transferred 
Greek,  "  the  clesis,"  and  "  ekology"  of  God. 

To  all  this  it  is  sufficient  to  reply, — no  such  diffculty 
has  been  encountered — though  all  Protestant  denomina- 
tions have  united  in  translating  the  Bible  into  nearly  all 
the  languages  of  the  earth.  The  sole  and  solitary  instance 
of  difficulty  that  has  occurred,  IP  that  in  which  the  Baptists 
have  endeavored  to  make  all  other  denominations  unite 
with  them  in  so  translating  this  word  as  to  suit  the  Baptist 
notions,  in  opposition  to  the  judgment  and  the  conscience 
of  all  other  denominations  of  the  Protestant  world.  To 
urge  such  arguments  in  this  case,  is  to  argue  that  we  should 
not  transfer  this  particular  word  for  the  best  of  reasons,  lest 
hereafter  we  should  have  to  transfer  other  words  for  no 
reason  ; — and  words  which  nobody  has  ever  attempted  or 
desired  to  transfer.  The  question  is  on  Baptize  alone. 
Our  Baptist  brethren  may  try  to  divert  the  argument  from 
this  point,  but  it  is  in  vain.  Their  movements  in  this 
matter  seem  to  me  to  resemble  those  of  the  cuttle-fish, 
which,  conscious  of  being  unable  to  meet  its  pursuer,  en- 
deavors to  bewilder  and  elude  him,  by  diffusing  around  his 
path  an  inky  darkness.  But  it  will  not  do.  Their  trans- 
lators are  not  required  to  transfer  a  long  list  of  disputed 
words  before  their  versions  can  be  adopted  by  the  Ameri- 
can Bible  Society.  They  are  not  compelled  to  translate 
from  the  version  of  king  James,  nor  to  be  governed  by  it, 
save  to  make  their  versions  so  far  agree  with  it,  that  all 

«  Report  A,  &  F.  Bible  Society,  1840,  p.  49. 


122  A  REFUTATION   OF 

denominations  may  use  them  in  common.  Our  Baptist 
brethren  know  full  well,  that  nothing  more  than  this  is  re- 
quired, to  bring  any  version  within  the  rule  adopted  by  the 
American  Bible  Society.  While  these  things  are  so,  how 
lamentably  disingenuous  it  is  for  the  Baptist  Bible  Society 
to  talk  as  they  have  done  in  the  Appendix  to  their  Report 
for  1840,  p.  51,  about  the  British  and  Foreign,  and  the 
American  Bible  Societies,  wishing  "  to  perpetuate  the 
odious  despotism  of  the  Stuarts  by  putting  fetters  on  the 
translators  of  the  Bible ;" — and  for  Mr.  Woolsey  to  say  as 
he  has  done,  p.  97,  "  King  James  of  England,  and  not 
king  Jesus  of  Zion,  is  by  our  Pedobaptist  brethren  made 
to  control  the  translation  of  the  word  of  life  !  !  /"  "  Im- 
pose fetters  on  the  translators  of  the  Bible  !  Are  we  im- 
posing fetters  upon  translators,  simply  by  declining  to  wear 
the  fetters  which  sectarian  translators  would  forge  for  us  1 
Is  it  despotism  for  seven  denominations  of  Christians  to  de- 
cline submitting  their  judgment  and  conscience  to  the  au- 
thority of  the  eighth  1  Are  these  the  only  terms  on  which 
our  Baptist  brethren  can  unite  with  other  denominations 
in  any  thing  1 — that  all  other  denominations  regard  them 
as  infallible,  and  give  up  their  own  judgment  and  con- 
science, and  help  circulate  the  conceits  of  the  Baptists  as 
the  unadulterated  word  of  God  !  We  never  entered  into 
a  society  on  such  conditions.  We  never  shall. 

But  with  sectarian  differences  the  American  Bible  So- 
ciety had  nothing  to  do.*     Its  sole  business  was,  and  is,  to 


*  Said  the  Rev.  Thomas  L.  Curtis,  a  Baptist,  in  his  speech  be- 
fore the  American  Bible  Society,  May  1837.  "  We  must  go  back 
to  first  principles  and  learn  what  these  two  words  Bible — Society — 
mean.  It  is  a  society  literally  as  broad  as  the  Bible,  unincumbered 
and  unfilled  with  human  creeds,  like  the  Bible  ;  a  society  where  all 
may  meet,  and  all  may  love,  like  the  Bible."  "This,  (the  Ameri. 


BAPTIST  ERRORS.  123 

circulate  such  versions  as  all  can  agree  to  circulate ; — and 
surely,  such  versions,  if  any  on  earth,  must  be  the  most 
faithful ;  without  sectarian  bias,  the  pure,  the  simple,  the 


can)  is  a  Bible  Society.  To  me  it  is  far  dearer  than  any  sect  or 
denomination.  As  a  Baptist,  I  love  my  sect ;  but  I  love  the  air  I 
am  breathing  to  day  more  than  that  of  my  own  sect ;  it  refreshes 
me  ;  it  invigorates  my  lungs.  I  feel  relieved  when  I  enter  it.  I 
have  been  breathing  the  confined  air  of  my  party  for  years,  but 
here  I  find  myself  in  a  purer  and  fresher  atmosphere." 

"There  are  purposes  which  you  can  answer,  which  no  mere  sect 
can  accomplish,  while  sect  remains.  In  the  toils  and  labors  of  a 
denomination,  we  are  like  a  miner  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth.  It  is 
his  duty  ;  it  is  his  life  ;  he  must  labor  there  while  duty  calls  him, 
amidst  a  mixture  of  jarring  elements,  but  far  from  the  light  and 
fresh  air  which  are  enjoyed  above  him."  "  There  are  ^mephitic 
gasses ;  there  is  much  dogmatism,  much  narrowness,  much  bitter- 
ness. These,  like  the  fire-damp,  fill  the  region  with  exhalations 
not  only  loathsome  but  dangerous,"  .  .  "If  gentleness,  if 
meekness,  if  brotherly  love  constitute  the  life  of  religion,  there  is 
danger,  great  danger,  that  their  explosion  may  destroy  both  the 
work,  and  the  workmen.  But  the  Bible  Society  is  like  a  safety 
lamp."  .  .  .  Ct  The  Bible  Society,  and  by  this  I  mean  the 
society  properly  so  called,  the  Bible  Society  proper,  [for  I  suppose 
we  shall  have  some  other  sort  of  Bible  societies  with  some  other 
name,]  is  able  to  arrest  and  burn  the  hydrogen  of  sectarian  and 
party  feeling,  &c."  ..."  The  separate  organization  of  any 
one  sect  .  .  .  cherishes  the  maximum  of  difference  and  the 
minimum  of  agreement.  Its  cry  is  *•  of  what  great  importance  it 
is,  that  our  testimony  for  the  truth  should  be  preserved."  But  then 
it  is  their  testimony  not  to  the  whole  truth,  but  to  a  particular  part 
of  it,  and  to  that  part  in  which  they  differ  from  others.  It  is  con- 
stantly  trying  how  much  it  can  make  of  that  difference.  Such  a 
spirit  is  antj.christian.  .  .  ''When  it  enters  such  a  glorious 
circle  as  this"  [alluding  to  the  vast  assembly  of  3000  or  4000  people 
before  him,]  its  exclamation  is,  "  how  few  reasons  have  I  to  agree 
with  any  of  those  around  me  ?  How  little  cause  have  I  to  rejoice 
in  such  an  assemblage  of  Christian  professors."  .  .  .  tC  I  am 


124  A   REFUTATION   OF 

unadulterated  word  of  God.  The  American  Bible  So- 
ciety was  so  single  in  its  aim  and  so  limited  in  its  province  ; 
that  it  would  not  even  take  upon  itself  to  judge  that  a  ver- 
sion which  only  one  denomination  on  earth  can  use  was 
for  that  very  reason  to  be  condemned  or  suspected  as  un- 
faithful or  as  biased  by  sectarian  views : — it  judged  simply 
and  solely  concerning  such  a  version,  that  it  was  not  a  ver- 
sion for  them  to  circulate.  If  versions  were  to  be  circu- 
lated, which  only  one  denomination  could  use,  the  Ameri- 
can Bible  Society  left  that  work  to  other  hands,  and  had 
not  one  word  to  say,  either  to  approve  or  to  condemn.  If 


aware  that  a  very  important  sect  of  Christians  has  adopted  an  or- 
gariization  founded  on  its  difference  from  a/1  other  sects,  but  I  have 
seen  enough  of  sects  and  parties  to  know"  .  .  "  that  they  are 
not  a  whit  better  agreed  among  themselves  than  as  a  sect  they  dif- 
fer from  others.  They  are  in  fact  divided  on  minor  points  into 
iub-sects  ;  and  these  again  would  split  on  some  other  points  still 
more  minute;  and  if  we  must  have  a  separate  Bible  organization 
founded  on  the  leading  point  of  sectarian  difference,  we  must  have 
the  principle  extended,  and  we  must  reorganize  on  each  minor 
difference."  ...  , 

"  I  will  now  stop  to  notice  for  one  moment  the  position  which 
this  society  holds  in  the  relation  to  the  denomination  to  which  I 
belong.  The  Baptist  Association  has  met,  and  the  results  of  its 
deliberations  have  been  published  to  the  world."  .  .  "  When, 
in  that  association  the  voice  of  sedate  piety  and  unambitious  learn- 
ing was  heard,  your  society  was  not  forgotten.  The  idea  of  separa- 
ting from  you  was  deprecated  by  many,  and  I  have  been  requested 
here  to  express  the  union  of  feeling  which  is  still  cherished  by  many 
among  that  body,  who  feel  that  they  are  one  with  you.  .  .  . 
*'  They  deeply  regret  that  the  seamless  robe  of  Christ  our  Savior 
should  ever  be  torn  by  the  hands  of  his  own  disciples.  We  feel  as 
Israel  once  did,  when  there  seemed  to  be  a  danger  that  a  tribe 
should  become  lacking  from  among  them.  And  they  said,  'O 
Lord  God  of  Israel,  why  has  it  come  to  pass  in  Israel,  that  there 
should  be  to  day  one  tribe  lacking  in  Israel  ?'  " 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  125 

any  denomination  saw  fit  to  form  a  denominational  Bible 
Society — still  the  American  Bible  Society  had  nothing  to 
say.  If  our  Baptist  brethren  saw  fit  to  form  a  denomina- 
tional Bible  Society,  and  withdraw  from  the  National  So- 
ciety,— it  was  surely  their  prerogative  so  to  do.* 

But  having  exercised  this  prerogative,  they  surely  had 
no  ground  of  complaint  against  the  American  Bible  Soci- 
ety 5  unless  it  be  a  ground  of  complaint  that  when  all  Pro- 
testant denominations  unite  to  do  a  work  in  common,  it 
is  a  ground  of  complaint  not  to  install  the  Baptists  as  dic- 
tators to  all  the  rest.  And  yet,  because  the  American 
Bible  Society  will  not  thus  yield  itself  to  sectarian  dicta- 
tion, and  lend  itself  to  the  work  of  furthering  sectarian 
views,  Mr.  Woolsey  calls  it  "  that  now  sectarian  Society." 
And  the  Baptist  Society  is  held  up  as,  in  compari- 
son, generously  and  widely  catholic  and  liberal !  Be- 
cause the  American  Bible  Society  declined  to  lend  itself 
to  the  unjust  work  of  furthering  the  views  of  one  sect,  to 
the  condemnation  of  all  others,  Mr.  Woolsey  says  of  the 
Society,  that  their  "  sectarian  prejudice  has  reached  a 
point  when  it  must  revert  upon  itself,  and  tend  to  defeat 
the  object  it  aimed  to  secure."  He  likens  the  Society  to 
"  designing  men,"  whose  "  eagerness  carries  them  to  such 
daring  extremity,  as  to  overthrow  the  very  object  of  their 
ambitious  endeavors."  He  likens  them  to  "  the  aspiring 


*  And  yet,  it  seems  to  me,  that  in  breaking  off  from  a  National 
American  Bible  Society,  to  form  a  society,  exclusively  and  rigidly 
sectarian,  it  was  singularly  arrogant  to  set  forth  that  sectarian 
society  to  the  world,  as  ''  The  AMERICAN  and  Foreign  Bible  So- 
cttffy."  The  common  acceptation  of  such  a  name,  in  this  country, 
implies  a  characteristic  which  that  society  does  not  possess*  One 
might  have  thought  that  an  enemy  had  given  the  society  such  a 
name  in  mockery  of  its  uncompromising  sectarianism. 
11 


126  A    REFUTATION   OF 

Hainan,"  whose  "  wicked  plot  turned  upon  himself;"  and 
to  "  Crassus,  not  content  with  more  than  enough,  but  by 
overstraining  for  Parthian  gold,  loses  the  object  of  his 
ambitious  aim,  and  aids  to  forward,  to  a  more  desirable 
felicity,  those  whom  he  thought  to  make  desolate."  "  Thus 
too,"  says  he,  "the  managers  of  the  above  named  Bible 
Society,  instead  of  preventing  the  growing  millions  of  In- 
dia, whose  imploring  hands  were  beginning  to  be  stretched 
forth  for  the  word  of  life,  from  receiving  the  Bible  faith- 
fully translated,  have  at  least  lost  their  party  aim."  This 
is  a  specimen  of  page  after  page,  which  he  gives  us  of  the 
like  charitable  and  respectful  treatment,  (if  it  be  lawful  to 
call  it  charitable  or  decent,  or  anything  else  than  slander- 
ous abuse  and  misrepresentation,)  of  the  American  Bible 
Society.  Whoever  will  take  the  Report  of  the  American 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society  for  1840,  and  read  it  from  end 
to  end,  will  perceive  that  Mr.  Woolsey  simply  re-echoes 
the  spirit  and  sentiments  of  that  Report. 

LIBERALITY    OF    BAPTISTS    WITH     REGARD     TO     FOREIGN   MIS- 
SIONARY   TRANSLATORS. 

Mr.  Woolsey  says,  p.  91,  "  The  Pedobaptist  missionary 
translators  are  compelled,  on  pain  of  exclusion  from  the 
patronage  of  the  Board,  not  to  translate,  but  to  transfer 
those  words  called  ;  ecclesiastical/  They  are  not  left  to 
act  in  the  fear  of  God,  but  forced  to  comply  .with  the  party 
wishes  of  the  Pedobaptist  Bible  Society,  called  the  Ameri- 
can Bible  Society." 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Baptists,  he  claims,  are  entirely 
liberal.  "  Now,"  says  he,  "  Baptists  cannot,  dare  not 
favor  such  a  principle  of  translation.  Baptists  charge 
their  missionary  translators  to  express  in  their  versions 
the  very  sense  of  the  original  text.  The  Baptist  board 
makes  it  the  duty  of  all  their  missionaries  to  be  guided  in 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  127 

their  translations  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  not  by  the  version 
of  King  James,  or  Bishop  Parker,  or  King  Henry,  but  by 

the  ORIGINAL  OF  KlNG  JESUS." 

The  plain  English  of  what  Mr.  Woolsey  would  have  the 
world  believe,  is,  that  while  the  American  Bible  Society 
do  not  leave  their  translators  to  act  in  the  fear  of  God,  but 
force  them  to  comply  with  the  party  wishes  of  Pedobap- 
tists,  the  Baptist  Bible  Society  is  not  only  exceedingly 
liberal,  to  allow  all  translators  to  "  express  the  exact  sense, 
according  to  the  original,  but  charges  them  to  use  their 
liberty."  And  our  Baptist  brethren  would  make  the  world 
believe  that  thuy  are  so  liberal  as  to  allow  the  transla- 
tor to  express  the  exact  sense  of  the  original  as  he  HIMSELF 
understands  it.  Thus  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cone,  President  of  the 
Baptist  Bible  Society,  in  his  speech  at  their  anniversary, 
April  28,  1840,  (Report,  p.  6,)  cites  with  earnest  appro- 
bation, as  the  principles  of  their  Society,  the  following 
words  :  "  The  translator  is  bound  to  express  in  his  version 
the  exact  sense  of  the  original  AS  HE  HIMSELF  UNDERSTANDS 
IT.  We  are  sure  we  speak  the  common  sense  of  mankind, 
when  we  say,  if  he  acts  on  any  other  principle,  he  is  a 
traitor  to  the  highest  trust  that  was  ever  delegated  to  man." 
Again,  he  quotes  with  the  same  approbation,  and  means  to 
have  it  understood  as  the  sentiment  of  the  Society  over 
which  he  presides,  the  following  sentence :  "  In  the  name 
of  all  that  is  honest  and  faithful,  let  every  man  who  is  em- 
ployed in  this  work  render  every  word  into  what  HE  be- 
lieves to  be  its  meaning." 

If  our  Baptist  brethren  mean  by  this,  that  a  transla- 
tor should  follow  the  original,  and  be  very  conscientious 
to  express  the  exact  sense  of  the  original,  they  are  by  no 
means  peculiar.  The  American  Bible  Society  holds  to 
such  a  principle  as  firmly  as  any  body  of  men  on  earth. 


128  A   REFUTATION   OF 

The  Hon.  John  Cotton  Smith,  President  of  the  American 
Bible  Society,  expressed  the  sentiment — no  doubt  —  of 
every  member  of  that  Society  in  the  land,  when  he  said, 
in  his  speech  at  the  anniversary,  May,  1837,  "  We  cannot 
be  too  particular  in  admonishing  all  who  receive  our  aid 
in  the  work  of  translation,  to  conform  faithfully  and  mi- 
nutely to  the  originals — to  beware  of  incurring  the  awful 
guilt  of  adding  to  or  taking  from  the  Divine  word." 

But  this  is  not  all  that  our  Baptist  brethren  mean  to 
have  understood.  Both  Mr.  Woolsey  and  the  President  of 
the  Baptist  Bible  Society  mean  to  substantiate  a  cla?.-n  for 
the  Baptists  of  peculiar  and  enlarged  liberality,  ev  n  the 
liberality  of  allowing  every  foreign  translator  to  e  press 
the  exact  sense  of  the  original  AS  HE  HIMSELF  TINDERS  A NDS 
IT,  no  matter  whether  he  understands  it  as  the  Society  does 
or  not.  To  talk  about  allowing  the  translator  to  interpret 
the  Bible  as  HE  HIMSELF  UNDERSTANDS  IT,  can  have  no 
bearing  on  the  question  at  issue,  unless  our  Baptist  breth- 
ren, in  so  talking,  mean  to  affirm  their  readiness  to  print 
and  circulate  the  version  of  every  translator  employed  in 
this  business  who  has  rendered  every  word  according  to 
his  own  understanding  of  its  import. 

But  is  this  the  truth  1  When,  as  Mr.  Cone  says,  the 
Baptist  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  instructed  their  mis- 
sionaries "  to  ascertain  the  exact  meaning  of  the  original 
text ;  to  express  that  meaning  as  exactly  as  the  nature  of 
the  languages  into  which  they  shall  translate  the  Bible  will 
permit  ;  and  transfer  no  words  which  are  capable  of  being 
literally  translated  /"  did  they  mean  to  enlarge  the  char- 
ter of  the  translator's  freedom,  or  to  limit  and  prescribe  it  1 
The  talk  about  "  prayer  and  diligent  study,"  and  about 
"  ascertaining  the  exact  meaning  of  the  original  text,"  was 
superfluous.  It  does  not  appear  that  any  translator  had 
been  remiss  in  these  duties,  or  that  such  remissness  had 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  129 

been  apprehended.  There  had  been  no  question  about 
transferring  more  words  than  one.  The  charge  of  the 
Baptist  Board  of  Missions  was  then  no  more  nor  less  than 
a  roundabout  way  of  charging  their  missionaries  not  to 
transfer  the  word  baptize,  but  to  translate  it  by  a  word  sig- 
nifying immerse :  and  should  any  missionary  of  theirs 
dream  that  the  charge  was  intended  to  give  him  a  larger 
license,  and  tolerate  him  in  rendering  the  word  WASH,  in- 
stead of  immerse,  in  case  he  should  himself  so  understand 
it  to  mean  in  the  original,  who  can  doubt  that  the  Baptist 
Missionary  Board  would  soon  teach  him  his  mistake,  and 
forthwith  prevent  the  word,  as  he  understands  it,  from 
spreading  among  the  missions  where  they  hold  the  control  1 

And  what  are,  in  fact,  the  principles  of  the  American 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society  1  Have  they,  indeed,  orga- 
nized for  the  purpose  of  circulating  versions  which  may 
differ  from  the  views  of  the  entire  denomination,  provided 
the  original  is  translated  as  the  missionary  himself  under- 
stands it  1  Is  it  to  be  believed  that  a  Society  which  will 
not  let  our  common  English  version  issue  from  their 
presses  without  prefixing  to  it  a  Baptist  vocabulary,  is  in- 
deed so  liberal  as  to  yield  its  own  judgment  to  the  judg- 
ment of  a  missionary  translator,  in  case  HE  understands  the 
word  baptize  to  mean  wash,  and  not  immerse  ?  Unless 
this  is  the  principle  which  our  Baptist  brethren  mean  to 
avow,  and  to  which  they  mean  to  bind  themselves,  I  can- 
not but  regard  their  declarations  concerning  the  transla- 
tor's duty,  their  strong  appeals  to  sympathy  on  his  behalf, 
and  their  claims  to  superior  liberality,  not  only  as  falla- 
cious, but  as  disingenuous  and  deceptive.  They  "  charge 
their  missionaries  to  express  in  their  versions  the  very 
sense  of  the  original  text."  Will  they  tolerate  him  in 
expressing  any  other  than  a  Baptist  sense  1 

Suppose  a  case  ; — and  one  that  must  happen  in  seven 
11* 


130  A   REFUTATION   OF 

cases  out  of  eight ; — unless,  after  all,  our  Baptist  brethren 
mean  to  limit  their  appeals  to  sympathy  to  the  case  of 
Baptist  missionaries  alone.  A  missionary,  in  the  course 
of  translating  the  Bible,  comes  to  Luke  xi.  38.  He  be- 
lieves that  to  translate  the  word  "  baptizo"  here  by  the 
word  "  immerse,"  would  make  the  Bible  speak  falsehood. 
He  honestly  and  undoubtingly  believes  that  the  truth  of 
God,  and  every  sound  principle  of  interpretation,  requires 
him  either  to  transfer  the  word  baptize  here,  or  to  render 
it  by  the  word  wash,  as  Luther  did,  and  as  our  English 
translators  have  done.  Will  our  Baptist  brethren  think 
that  because  this  translation  is  the  work  of  a  man  who  is  a 
missionary,  and  profoundly  skilled  in  the  language  into 
which  he  is  translating  the  word  of  God,  that  his  version  is 
no  "  Bible  mutilated  and  disguised,"  but  an  honest  and 
"  most  faithful  one,"  and  therefore  deem  it  their  duty  to 
print  and  circulate  it  1  Will  the  "  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society"  abide  by  their  professed  principles  here, 
and,  "  in  the  name  of  all  that  is  honest  and  faithful,"  print 
and  circulate  this  Bible,  in  which  every  word  is  faithfully 
rendered  by  the  missionary,  as  "  he  himself  understands 
it  V  Will  they  admit  the  justice  of  their  appeals  to  sym- 
pathy here  1  The  missionary  "  pauses — he  prays — he 
reads  the  original  Greek  text — he  understands  its  precise 
import."  He  knows  that  baptize,  in  Luke  xi.  38,  does 
not  mean  immerse.  He  knows  the  Glossary  of  the  Bap- 
tist Bible  Society  is  but  a  glossary  "  made  by  fallible  and 
erring  men."  "  Shall  he  obey  God,  or  shall  he  obey 
man  1"  "  While  he  is  solemnly  impressed  with  a  sense 
of  these  things,  he  looks  around  him — he  finds  himself  far 
away  from  kindred  and  friends,  to  whom  he  can  look  for 
the  least  support — he  thinks  of  his  wife  and  little  ones, 
dear  to  his  soul," — "yet  he  musf  translate  the  word 
immerse,  "  on  pain  of  being  excluded  from  all  further  sup- 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  131 

port  from  that  board  which  sent  him  into  the  field ! ! !" 
"  He  is  reverently  attending  to  the  messages  of  heaven  as 
recorded  by  the  pen  of  inspiration,  and  aiming  solely  and 
carefully  to  transfer  their  true  and  living  import  into  the 
language  of  the  benighted  heathen :"  but  "  his  labor  shall 
be  useless,  his  translation  shall  never  go  beyond  his  cham- 
ber, and  be  spread  out  before  the  eyes  of  those  for  whom 
he  is  toiling  and  wasting  his  life,  unless  it  is  made  on  other 
principles  than  an  exclusive  regard  to  the  sense  of  the 
original,  and  the  nearest  possible  approach  to  it  in  the  ren- 
dering." *'  O !  it  is  a  fearful  thing  to  tamper  with  the 
conscience  of  such  a  man; — to  throw  before  him  any 
temptation  to  deviate,  though  never  so  little,  from  the 
line  of  perfect  fidelity  to  the  truth  !"* 

Which  ground  will  our  Baptist  brethren  take  with 
regard  to  such  a  man  1  Will  they  admit  the  irresistible 
cogency  of  such  appeals  to  sympathy  1  Will  they  with- 
draw everything  that  they  have  said  about  such  a  version 
being  "a  Bible  mutilated  and  disguised!"  Will  they 
retract  the  assertion  adopted  and  printed  by  a  full  and  for- 
mal vote  of  their  society,  that  such  a  version  is  a  version 
in  which  "  the  real  meaning  of  the  words  used  in  con- 
nection with  one  of  Christ's  ordinances  is  PURPOSELY  KEPT 
OUT  OF  SIGHT  1"f  How  will  they  deal  with  that  mis- 
sionary 1  Will  they  take  him  by  the  hand  and  say  — 
Brother!  other  missionaries  "are  not  left  to  act  in  the 
fear  of  God,"  but  are  forced  to  comply  with  the  party 
feelings  of  the  Pedobaptist  Bible  Society,  called  "  The 
American  Bible  Society."  But  "Baptists  cannot,  dare 
not  favor  such  a  principle  of  translation.  Baptists  charge 
their  missionary  translators  to  express  in  their  versions  the 


*  Am.  and  For.  Bible  Soc.  Rep ,  1840,  pp.  70,  71. 
t  Report,  1840,  p.  39. 


132  A   REFUTATION   OF 

very  sense  of  the  original  text."  And  that  sense,  dear 
brother,  is  not  to  be  as  we  understand  it,  but  as  you  your- 
self understand  it.  This  is  the  liberal  principle  on  which 
our  society  is  formed;  as  you  will  see  set  forth  most 
largely  and  explicitly  in  the  address  of  our  president  at 
the  anniversary  of  our  society,  April  28,  1840  j  as  you 
will  find  amply  professed  and  cogently  enforced  in  the  re- 
port of  our  society  ;  and  earnestly  and  explicitly  declared 
and  advocated  on  pp.  90,  91  of  Brother  Woolsey. 

Is  this  the  ground  our  Baptist  brethren  mean  to  take  1 
If  not,  will  they  acknowledge  the  fallacy  of  their  appeals, 
—  admit  that  they  were  mistaken  in  the  claims  of  their 
society  as  founded  on  principles  so  preminently  liberal,  — 
or  will  they  limit  the  application  of  such  principles  and 
appeals,  and  confess  that  they  keep  their  liberality  and 
their  sympathy  for  Baptist  missionaries  alone  1 

u  Baptists  charge  their  missionary  translators  to  express 
in  their  versions  the  very  sense  of  the  original  text" 
This,  they  say,  is  liberal.  This  is  "  not  sectarian."  This, 
says  Mr.  Woolsey,  p.  17,  "  can  never  be  opposed  except 
for  the  purpose  of  promoting  and  perpetuating  sectarian 
designs."  This  is  all  very  good.  But  who  is  to  decide 
what  is  the  sense  of  the  original  text  ? 

The  President  of  the  Baptist  Bible  Society  in  his  address 
would  make  us  believe  that  the  version  which  they  will 
patronize  must  be  made  by  the  missionary  "  in  the  exact 
sense  of  the  original,  as  he  himself  understands  it."  The 
Baptist  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  charge  their  mis- 
sionaries, "  by  earnest  prayer  and  diligent  study  to  ascer- 
tain the  exact  meaning  of  the  original  text,  to  express 
their  meaning  as  exactly  as  the  nature  of  the  languages 
into  which  they  shall  translate  the  Bible  will  permit ;  and 
to  transfer  no  words  which  are  capable  of  being  literally 
translated."  Now  all  this  sounds  fair  and  liberal.  The 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  133 

impression  made,  and  the  impression  intended  to  be  made, 
by  the  remarks  of  the  President  of  the  Baptist  Bible  So- 
ciety and  by  Mr.  Woolsey  is,  that  the  missionary  is  to  be 
left  to  decide  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  original  text. 
And  so  he  is,  PROVIDED  he  be  an  exclusive  Baptist,  and 
Understands  the  disputed  passages  as  the  Baptist  Bible 
Society  and  the  Baptist  Missionary  Society  understand 
them,  and  not  otherwise.  I  repeat  it,  —  AND  NOT  OTHER- 
WISE. He  shall  interpret  the  Bible  as  he  understands  it> 
provided  he  understands  it  as  they  do.  If  he  does  not, 
his  version  shall  —  not  be  printed,  but  denounced.  He 
shall  not  have  their  sympathies,  but  their  condemnation  ^ 
as  a  man  who  has  "PURPOSELY  KEPT  OUT  OF  SIGHT  and  dis- 
honestly CONCEALED"  the  counsel  of  God.  "Indeed," 
says  Mr.  Woolsey,  p.  73,  "  indeed,  my  brethren,  I  most 
sincerely  PITY  that  man,  who  has,  in  this  age  of  Gospel 
light,  a  CONSCIENCE  that  can  suffer  him  to  deny  the  prac- 
ticability of  translating  baptize,  baptism,  and  their  kindred 
words,  into  words  meaning  to  immerse,  immersion,"  &c. 
After  all  this  ado  about  "  tampering  with  the  conscience 
of  missionary  translators,"  —  after  all  these  appeals  to 
sympathy,  and  this  eloquent  and  earnest  advocacy  of  the 
liberal  principle  of  allowing  every  missionary  translator  to 
interpret  the  Bible  as  he  himself  understands  it,  —  their 
boasted  liberality  amounts  to  this :  he  shall  make  the  Bible 
speak  as  he  understands  it,  if  he  be  a  Baptist ;  and  not 
otherwise.  Thus,  says  "  The  Constitution  of  the  (Bap- 
tist) Bible  Translation  Society,"  (the  British  association 
answering  to  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society.) 
"It  shall  be  the  object  of  this  society  to  encourage  the 
production  and  circulation  of  complete  translations  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  competently  authenticated  for  fidelity,  IT 

BEING  ALWAYS  UNDERSTOOD  that  THE  WORDS  RELATING  TO 
THE  ORDINANCE  OF  BAPTISM  SHALL  BE  TRANSLATED  BY 
TERMS  SIGNIFYING  IMMERSION." 


134  A   REFUTATION  OF 

I  should  like  to  know  whether  the  same  thing  is  not 
""ALWAYS  UNDERSTOOD  "  with  regard  to  the  versions  to  be 
issued  by  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  1  If 
it  is  not  so  understood,  then  I  confess  that  the  "  charge  " 
of  the  Baptist  Board  of  Missions,7 '  —  the  affirmations  con- 
tained in  the  speech  of  the  President  of  the  Baptist  Bible 
Society,  the  claim  of  liberal  principles  by  their  report, 
and  the  appeals  of  Mr.  Woolsey,  are  all  just  and  perti- 
nent: otherwise,  I  cannot  but  regard  them  as  fallacious 
and  deceptive  in  a  high  and  reprehensible  degree. 

The  true  question  with  regard  to  the  liberality  and  duty 
of  the  American  Bible  Society,  is  not  a  question  con- 
cerning the  translator's  duty,  but  concerning  its  own  duty 
as  a  Bible  Society  formed  of  various  denominations,  in  the 
case  of  a  given  translation.  Our  Baptist  brethren  shift 
the  ground  of  the  question,  and  appeal  to  our  sympathies 
in  behalf  of  the  translator.  But  has  not  the  society  some 
duties  as  well  as  the  translator  1 

I  can  understand  that  a  missionary  in  Burmah  is  better 
qualified  than  an  American  at  home  to  know  the  meaning 
of  a  Burmese  word.  But  I  cannot  comprehend  how  his 
knowledge  of  Burmese  renders  him  any  better  qualified, 
than  his  brethren  at  home,  to  understand  the  meaning  of 
the  Scriptures  in  Hebrew  and  Greek.  Does  he  become 
an  infallible  interpreter  of  the  original  Scriptures  by  re- 
siding among  the  heathen  1  If  not,  then  it  may  not 
always  be  safe,  even  for  our  Baptist  brethren,  to  circulate 
every  version  made  by  a  missionary,  even  though  he  has 
faithfully  made  it  according  to  the  original  as  he  himself 
understands  it.  Certainly  a  Bible  Society  composed  of 
several  denominations  will  be  slow  to  bind  itself  to  print 
and  circulate  versions  so  made  that  only  one  denomi- 
nation alone  can  use  them,  and  that  simply  on  the  ground 
that  such  versions  are  made  by  conscientious  missionaries. 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  135 

The  truth  is,  notwithstanding  all  these  outcries  and  pre- 
tensions, that  our  Baptist  brethren  have  broken  away  from 
the  national  society  founded  on  the  basis  of  a  union  of  all 
denominations,  and  have  formed  a  separate  and  sectarian 
society,  simply  and  solely  because  all  others  will  not  sub- 
mit to  their  dictation  in  the  matter  of  translating  that 
single  word  baptize ;  and  submit  to  it  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  condemn  the  solemn  belief  of  all  other  denomi- 
nations, and  exalt  the  opinion  of  the  Baptists  to  the  honor 
of  infallibility.  And  having  done  this,  our  Baptist  brethren 
put  forth  these  pretensions  to  singular  and  surpassing 
liberality. 

FEMALE    COMMUNION.  ^ 

In  reply  to  the  objection  that  infants  are  not  expressly 
mentioned  in  the  law  of  baptism,  or  expressly  specified  in 
any  instance  of  baptism,  —  Pedobaptists  answer  that  the 
same  mode  of  argument  would  put  an  end  to  female  com- 
munion, as  they  are  not  expressly  mentioned  in  the  law  of 
the  institution,  nor  are  they  anywhere  expressly  mentioned 
as  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  at  any  subsequent  time. 

Mr.  Woolsey  says,  (p.  358,)  "  If  it  can  be  shown  that 
the  Christian  Church  is  composed  of  believers  without  re- 
gard to  sex,  and  that  all  the  members  of  the  church  have 
an  equal  right  to  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  then 
the  OBJECTION  against  female  communion  is  unworthy  the 
confidence  of  Christians,  much  less  should  such  a  singular 
subterfuge  be  resorted  to  in  defence  of  infant  baptism." 

What  Pedobaptist  has  ever  made  an  "  objection " 
against  female  communion  1  Is  not  our  argument  based 
on  the  acknowledged  propriety  of  female  communion  1 
But  what  is  Mr.  Woolsey's  proposed  method  of  proof  of 
the  warrant  for  female  communion,  in  the  statement  which 
I  have  quoted  1  An  express  mention  of  females  in  any 


136  A   REFUTATION   OF 

precept  or  example  of  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper  1 
No  such  thing ;  but  a  method  of  argument  and  inference. 
He  adduces  no  express  warrant ;  he  frames  a  syllogism, 
and  brings  a  conclusion  of  human  reasoning  to  bear  upon 
the  interpretation  of  the  law  of  a  positive  institution. 
This  is  his  method  of  proof: — 

All   church  members   are   to   partake   of  the   Lord's 
Supper : 

Females  are  members  of  the  church : 
THEREFORE,  females  are  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. 

A  sound  conclusion  ;  but  is  that  conclusion  found  EX- 
PRESS in  the  Word  of  God,  or  does  it  hang  upon  a  "  there- 
fore "  of  human  logic  1  He  infers  that  the  apostles  sanc- 
tioned female  communion.  We  infer  the  same.  We 
find  it  impossible  to  doubt  it.  In  the  same  manner  we 
infer  that  apostles  kept  the  first  day  as  the  Sabbath.  We 
infer  that  the  Savior  sanctioned  the  change.  We  infer 
that  it  is  still  a  Sabbath,  and  not  simply  a  day  for  Chris- 
tians to  assemble  ;  because  a  Sabbath  was  ordained  for  the 
world,  and  the  law  has  never  been  repealed.  The  proof 
we  hold  to  be  good  and  conclusive.  In  the  same  manner, 
by  a  logic  as  simple,  and,  to  us,  as  irresistible,  we  prove 
the  Divine  warrant  for  infant  baptism,  and  hold  the  proof 
to  be  good  and  conclusive.  An  apostolic  example,  soundly 
proved  from  the  Scriptures,  is  sufficient  for  us  in  either  of 
these  cases ;  nor  dare  we  set  aside  what  we  consider  irre- 
sistible scriptural  evidence  of  such  an  example,  simply 
because  that  evidence  is  of  the  nature  of  inference  and  of 
just  interpretation,  rather  than  of  express  mention. 

But  says  Mr.  Woolsey,  (p.  353,)  "  If  it  be  true,  that 
there  is  no  positive  precept  nor  example  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament for  pious  females "...."  to  come  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  then  by  all  means,  ought  they  to  stay  away  —  it 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  137 

is  presumptuous  and  daring  for  mortals  to  venture  where 
God  has  not  authorized  them  to  go  !" 

"But,"  says  he,  p.  357,  "It  is  not  true  that  there  is  no 
positive  precept,  nor  explicit  example  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, for  female  communion.  We  have  both  precept  and 
example,  sufficiently  PLAIN,  &c."  Our  Baptist  brethren 
deceive  themselves  in  this  argument,  by  a  confusion  of 
terms.  Mr.  Woolsey  maintains  a  "  POSITIVE  precept,  and 
an  "  EXPLICIT  example" — sufficiently  plain."  Does  he 
mean  a  precept  in  which  females  are  EXPRESSLY  mention- 
ed: or  an  example  in  which  they  are  expressly  mentioned  \ 
Certainly  not :  he  adduces  not  one  of  either.  But  by 
proof,  which  I  admit  to  be  "  sufficiently  plain,"  he 
reasons  out  the  existence  of  such  a  practice  as  that  of 
female  communion. 

"Now  in  proof  that  there  is  a  divine  warrant  for 
female  communion  at  the  Lord's  table,  let  it  be  observed;" 
he  says: — PROOF — that  there  is — a  Divine  warrant  I 
PROOF  1  Why  not  adduce  the  precept  itself,  and  dispense 
with  other  proof  I  Proof!  His  principles  require  him 
to  bring  an  express  precept:  a  precept  or  example  in 
which  females  are  expressly  mentioned.  But  no :  he 
begins  with  "Let  it  be  observed"  He  goes  on  with 
"first,"  and  "  secondly,"  and  "further,"  and  "  It  is  ob- 
vious" He  REASONS;  he  amplifies  his  syllogism:  he 
cites  Scripture  from  which  he  may  infer: — and  by  a 
course  of  well  wrought  argumentation,  but  without  a 
solitary  express  mention  of  females  in  any  precept  or 
example,  he  makes  out  what  he  denominates  "  a  positive 
precept,"  and  an  "  explicit  example  :  and  then  winds  up 
with  a  "  therefore  :" — "  There  is  therefore, — EVIDENCE — 
positive  and  explicit  that  females  were  both  members  of 
the  church  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  were  admitted 
to  the  Lord's  supper."  "EVIDENCE  !  positive  and  explicit" 

n 


138  A   REFUTATION   OF 

No  express  precept ;  no  express  mention  in  an  example : 
but  "  EVIDENCE  positive  and  explicit," — good  inferential 
evidence,  of  an  example  which  though  not  expressly 
mentioned,  did  probably  and  undoubtedly  exist.  He 
shifts  the  words  "positive  and  explicit"  from  the  "pre- 
cept and  example,"  and  places  them  at  last  upon  the 
EVIDENCE  ;  and  the  nature  of  that  evidence  is  wholly 
inferential. 

Precisely  such  "  positive  and  explicit  evidence"  we 
find  in  the  Scriptures  for  infant  baptism.  If  the  nature 
of  the  evidence  be  good  in  the  one  case,  it  is  good  in  the 
other ;  and  the  objection  (not  to  female  communion,  but) 
to  the  Baptist  principle  of  argument,  remains  good  and 
irrefragable.  On  Mr.  Woolsey 's  own  ground,  they  must 
give  up  the  very  foundation  of  their  argument  against 
infant  baptism,  or  cease  to  tolerate  female  communion. 

If  Mr.  Woolsey  will  allow,  according  to  his  statement^ 
that  there  may  be  a  positive  precept,  and  an  explicit 
example  to  warrant  a  certain  class  in  participating  in  a 
divine  ordinance : — which  positive  precept,  and  explicit  ex- 
ample, may  be  made  out  by  "  evidence  sufficiently  plain," 
without  an  express  mention  of  that  class  in  any  particular 
precept  or  example ; — then  we  have  the  positive  precept 
and  explicit  example,  for  infant  baptism.  When  Dr. 
Woods  says,  "  My  position  is  that  the  Scriptures  of  the 
New  Testament,  understood  according  to  the  just  rules 
of  interpretation,  imply  that  the  children  of  believers 
are  to  be  baptized,"  he  rests  the  divine  warrant  for  in- 
fant baptism  on — what  Mr.  Woolsey  maintains  to  be  both 
"  a  positive  precept,  and  an  explicit  example  ;"  for  he 
makes  it  out  on  Scriptural  EVIDENCE,  which  is  both  posi- 
tive and  explicit ;  and  that  on  evidence  in  no  way  inferior 
to  that  by  which  Mr.  Woolsey  most  triumphantly  sweeps 
away  every  vestige  of  "  the  OBJECTION  against  female  com- 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  139 

munion ;"  and  shows  that  objection  to  be  "  unworthy  of 
the  confidence  of  Christians." 

THE    CHRISTIAN   SABBATH. 

On  p.  360,  Mr.  Woolsey  says,  "  So  perfectly  destitute 
of  all  manner  of  substantial  evidence  is  infant  baptism,  as 
to  seek  support  at  the  expense  of  the  Lord's  day"  *  *  * 
"  The  blessed  Sabbath  must  resign  its  claims  to  Divine 
authority,  and  be  based  upon  frail  human  reasoning,  for 
the  sake  of  furnishing  some  sort  of  plea  for  infant  baptism." 
*  *  *  "  But  in  this  last  attempt,  as  in  all  others,  their  plea 
is  not  only  void  of  the  least  shade  of  evidence,  but  stands  in 
fearful  conflict  with  the  cause  of  righteousness  and  truth." 

Notwithstanding  these  representations,  Mr.  Woolsey 
knows  full  well,  that  when  Pedobaptists  refer  to  the  Sab- 
bath in  reply  to  the  objection  that  infants  are  not  expressly 
mentioned  as  baptized,  they  build  their  argument  entirely 
on  the  admitted,  and,  in  their  view,  the  unquestionable 
divine  authority  of  the  Christian  Sabbath. 

On  our  principles  we  make  out  the  divine  authority 
for  observing  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  a  SABBATH. 
On  their  principles  we  think  the  Baptists  cannot.  Mr. 
Woolsey  has  tried  what  can  be  done  ;  but  if  the  reader 
will  turn  to  his  proof,  he  will  perceive  that  Mr.  Woolsey 
is  unable  to  find  a  solitary  precept  or  example  in  which 
Christians  are  expressly  taught  to  change  the  Sabbath  from 
the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  or  to  observe  the 
first  day  as  holy  time.  What  does  he  find  1  Christ  rose 
from  the  dead  on  the  first  day.  The  day  of  Pentecost  was 
the  first.  Jesus  came  to  his  disciples  when  they  were 
assembled  on  the  first  day.  The  disciples  repeatedly 
came  together  on  the  first  day  :  which  was  called  "  The 
Lord's  day"  Is  here  any  express  precept  for  a  change 
from  the  seventh  to  the  first  1  Is  here  any  express  war- 


140  A   REFUTATION   OF 

rant  for  regarding  the  hours  of  the  first  day  as  holy  time, — 
as  a  Sabbath  ; — or  for  observing  it  farther  than  to  assem- 
ble for  prayer  and  worship  on  that  day  1  Nothing  like  it* 
Mr.  Woolsey  argues  out  the  divine  authority  for  observ- 
ing the  first  day  of  the  week  as  a  Sabbath,  by  inference, 
and  by  inference  alone.  The  reasoning  is  complete,  and 
the  chain  perfect,  provided  we  maintain  the  warrant  for  a 
Sabbath  to  rest  first  on  the  fact  that  God  hallowed  the 
seventh  day  from  the  creation,  and  made  it  a  law — which 
is  still  unrepealed, — to  all  mankind  :  provided,  secondly, 
that  we  regard  the  fourth  commandment  as  still  a  part  of 
the  moral  law, — directing  how  the  Sabbath  previously 
ordained,  is  to  be  remembered  and  kept :  and  provided, 
thirdly,  that  we  regard  these  incidental  notices  of  observ- 
ing the  first  day  as  an  authoritative  change  of  the  day 
from  the  seventh  to  the  first.  This  ground  we  maintain. 
On  this  ground  the  Lord's  day  can  be  proved  to  be  the 
Christian  SABBATH,  all  the  hours  of  which  are  to  be  kept 
holy  unto  the  Lord.  Had  Mr.  Woolsey  varied  his  lan- 
guage a  little  and  said  that  Baptist  views  (instead  of  in- 
fant baptism),  are  "  so  destitute  of  all  manner  of  substantial 
evidence  as  to  seek  support  at  the  expense  of  the  Lord's 
day,"  he  would  have  been  much  nearer  the  mark.  It  is 
notorious  that  the  Seventh  Day  Baptists  reject  the  last  link 
of  the  chain  of  proof  by  which  the  "  Lord's  day,"  (the 
first  day  of  the  week)  is  hallowed  as  the  Sabbath.  Some 
other  Baptists  reject  the  second  link  in  the  chain,  and 
dispense  with  the  fourth  commandment.  The  "  Baptist 
Advocate,"*  of  November  21,  1840,  says  in  reply  to  the 

*  Probably  no  publication  is  more  widely  circulated  or  of  higher 
authority  among  that  denomination,  than  the  Baptist  Advocate. 
If  this  unequivocal  rejection  of  the  fourth  commandment  has  been 
anywhere  rebuked  among  them,  save  by  the  Seventh  Day  Baptists, 
I  am  not  informed  of  it ;  I  have  heard  of  no  movement,  remon- 
strance or  alarm  concerning  it. 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  141 

1  Seventh  Day  Baptist  Register,'—"  The  editor  further 
asks  us,  "  Whether  the  fourth  commandment  is  still 
binding  on  Christians  ?"  "  We  express  our  opinion 
unequivocally  in  the  negative"  It  seems  to  me  a  sin- 
gular liberty  for  those  to  take  who  separate  from  the  whole 
Christian  world  for  the  mere  ceremony  of  an  ordinance,  to 
make  thus  bold  with  the  commandments  of  God.  Where 
does  the  Baptist  Advocate  find  its  express  warrant  for 
chiselling  out  and  erasing  from  the  code  of  the  moral  law, 
a  commandment  which  God  himself  wrote  with  his  own 
finger  on  tables  of  stone  1  I  would  fain  believe,  that  the 
Baptist  Advocate  holds  still  to  a  divinely  appointed  Sab- 
bath. But  rejecting  the  fourth  commandment,  where  do 
the  conductors  of  that  paper  find  an  express  warrant  re- 
quiring mankind  to  keep  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  a 
SABBATH,  all  the  hours  of  which  are  holy  unto  the  Lord : 
and  on  which  we  are  expressly  commanded  to  rest ;  for- 
bidden to  labor,  to  speak  our  own  words— or  to  find  our 
own  pleasure  ?  The  Advocate  refers  us  to  "  Matt.  20  ; 
19-26  :  Acts  20  5  7  :  1  Cor.  16  :  2— and  elsewhere,"  for 
"  the  appointment  of  the  first  day  1"  For  the  appointment 
of  the  first  day  to  what  1 — to  be  how  observed  ?  Is  there 
in  these  passages,  or  in  all  others  of  the  same  sort  in  the 
New  Testament  an  express  warrant,  requiring  us  to  ob- 
serve the  day  as  a  Sabbath :  or  is  it  traveling  altogether 
beyond  anything  EXPRESSED  in  the  record  of  the  New 
Testament,  to  require  all  men  to  keep  the  first  day  as  a 
Sabbath — a  Divinely  appointed  rest  1  On  their  princi- 
ples, is  it  possible  for  our  Baptist  brethren  to  make  out 
such  a  warrant  1  And  when  they  do  make  it  out  do  they 
not  abandon  the  ground  which  they  take  with  regard  to 
infant  baptism,  and  come  fully  on  to  ours  1 

Nor  is  this  making  the  Sabbath  "  resign  its  claims  to 
divine  authority,"  to  be  "  based  upon  frail  human  reason- 
12* 


142  A   REFUTATION   OF 

ing."  The  reasoning  ascertains  the  appointment  to  be 
divine  ;  and  that  upon  revealed  grounds.  Though  the 
commandment  be  not  expressed  in  so  many  words :  it  is 
yet  so  made  known,  that  it  cannot  be  rejected  without 
rejecting  the  will  of  God.  To  insist  upon  rejecting  it 
because  he  has  not  made  it  known  in  a  way  of  our  pre- 
scribing, is  to  dictate  to  the  Most  High  with  regard  to 
the  manner  in  which  he  shall  reveal  his  will : — and  to 
demand  of  Him  that  in  certain  things  He  shall  make  his 
revelation  in  a  given  mode,  under  penalty  of  having  his 
will  rejected,  and  his  ordinances  trampled  in  the  dust. 

Mr.  Woolsey  quotes  Dr.  Paley,  as  though  Paley's  opin- 
ion could,  upon  his  principles,  help  him  out  in  his  proof 
of  the  Divine  warrant  for  observing  the  Lord's  day  as  a 
Sabbath.  But,  as  Mr.  Woolsey  well  knows, — Paley  re- 
jected the  Sabbath,  as  originally  binding  upon  the  J  ewish 
nation  alone :  and  rejected  the  observance  of  the  Lord's 
day  as  a  Sabbath.  Paley  even  rejected  every  notion  of 
an  express  Scriptural  command  for  observing  the  first  day 
of  the  week  at  all.  He  argues  only  from  probabilities  and 
by  inference.  "  The  practice  of  holding  religious  assem- 
blies upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,"  says  Paley,  "  was 
so  early  and  universal,  that,  it  comes  with  considerable 
proof  of  having  originated  from  some  precept  of  Christ 
or  of  his  apostles,  though  none  such  be  now  extant."  "It 
will  be  remembered,"  says  he,  "  that  we  are  contending 
by  these  proofs  for  no  other  duty  upon  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  than  that  of  holding  and  frequenting  religious 
assemblies."  "  The  conclusion  of  the  whole  inquiry,"  he 
says,  (for  it  is  our  business  to  follow  the  arguments  to 
whatever  probability  they  conduct  us),  is  this: — The 
assembling  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  for  the  purpose 
of  worship  and  religious  instruction,  is  a  law  of  Chris- 
tianity, of  divine  appointment :  the  resting  on  that  day 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  143 

from  our  employments  longer  than  we  are  detained  from 
them  by  attendance  upon  these  assemblies,  is  an  ordi- 
nance, of  human  institution" 

The  reader  will  see  how  little  it  helps  Mr.  Woolsey  to 
quote  Dr.  Paley,  in  aid  of  the  proof  on  his  principles,  that 
the  Lord's  day  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  Sabbath.  We  main- 
tain that  Paley  is  greatly  and  grievously  in  the  wrong. 
But  it  is  notorious  that  multitudes  of  Baptists  hold  to  his 
views ; — to  which  indeed  their  principle  of  arguing  most 
logically  leads  them  ; — nor  can  Mr.  Woolsey  go  even  so 
far  as  Paley  in  pleading  for  a  Divine  precept  requiring  us 
to  observe  the  Lord's  day,  without  first  giving  up  the 
principle  on  which  he  rejects  the  evidence  for  infant 
baptism. 

TERMS  OF  CHRISTIAN    UNION. 

Mr.  Woolsey  is  full  and  frequent  in  declaring  his  own 
kind*  feelings  and  impartial  love  of  the  truth  in  his  dis- 
cussion of  the  question  between  us.  "  I  have,"  says  he, 
"  this  testimony,  that  what  I  have  written,  was  penned 
with  much  affection  towards  those  from  whose  views  I 
conscientiously  dissent."  "  If  I  know  my  own  heart,  I 
have  said  nothing  out  of  strife,  or  with  the  desire  to  wound 
the  feelings  of  others."  "  I  have  no  selfish  ends  to  an- 
swer, nor  any  party  feeling  to  gratify."* 

*  It  is  not  for  us  to  disturb  Mr.  Woolsey's  inward  "  testimony,'" 
nor  to  question  it.  And  yet  it  is,  somehow,  strange  that  ««  much 
affection  should  be  so  continually  breaking  out  in  such  strains  ae 
abound  in  almost  every  page  of  his  book."  A  few  samples  have 
been  incidentally  brought  to  light  in  the  course  of  this  examina- 
tion— such  as  these  ;  "  At  the  laboring  oar  day  and  night  to  make 
sprinkling  answer  for  immersion — and  to  keep  their  consciences  in  a 
state  of  tolerable  rest."  "Pitiful  in  the  extreme,  that  such  efforts 
should  be  made  to  avoid  following  the  lowly  yet  delightful  footsteps  of 


144  A   REFUTATION   OF 

On  p.  225,  he  has  a  section  "  RESPECTING  UNION  AMONG 
CHRISTIANS,"  in  which  he  talks  feelingly  about  "  the  de- 
sirableness of  such  endeared  fellows  hip  among  Christians" 
"  Behold  how  good  and  pleasant  it  is  for  brethren  to  dwell 
together  in  unity."  "  It  is  as  the  dew  of  Hermon,"  &c., 
&c.  With  glowing  anticipations  he  looks  forward  to  the 
time  of  this  union  among  all  the  followers  of  Christ ;  and, 
finally  closes  with  this  exhortation  ;  "  till  then,  let  us  not 
cease  to  pray  and  labor  for  this  union." 

Now  all  this  talk  about  "  fellowship  and  union  is  very 
good ;  and  might  lead  people  to  suppose  that  the  Bap- 
tists are  as  a  denomination  very  charitable  and  loving  and 
liberal  towards  other  denominations."  Indeed,  Mr.  Wool- 


Jesus."  But  there  is  no  need  of  repeating  them.  It  would  require  no 
search,  and  little  pains  at  culling  from  his  book,  to  fill  along  chap- 
ter with  such  specimens.  Instances  are  neither  dubious  nor  solita- 
ry in  which  he  charges  us  unsparingly,  with  "  attempting  to 
avoid  the  plain  import  of  the  words  employed  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Let  me  give  one  instance  out  of  many  of  his  way  of  making  such 
charges  indirectly  by  way  of  inuendo.  Speaking  of  the  Jewish 
Priest  commanded  to  dip  his  finger  in  blood  and  sprinkle  it  before 
the  Lord,  he  says,  p.  114,  "  He  was  not  at  liberty,  nor  had  he  the  im- 
piety to  stand  and  quibble  about  God's  command  with  the  hope  of  keep- 
ing his  ringer  out  of  the  blood.  Now  a-days,  some  have  got  to  be 
so  very  delicate,  that  had  those  Jewish  rites  been  continued,  we 
might  bs  told  not  to  dip  our  finger  in  the  blood,  for  such  an  act  iri 
highly  indecorous  ;  besides  the  original  word  tahbval  does  not  mean 
to  dip !  /"  After  writing  nearly  a  whole  book  laden  and  groaning 
from  page  to  page  with  such  matter  as  this  : — after  so  many  ap- 
peals about  •*  liberty,"  "rights,"  "  church  and  state;"  and  so  much 
more  behind  about  "despotic  acts,"  and  {i  tyranny  of  the  worst 
kind,"  Mr.  Woolsey  gravely  remarks,  p.  116,  •*  Baptists  make  no 
appeals  to  the  unsanctitied  passions  of  the  soul."  4'  They  reject, 
utterly,  ridicule  as  argument,  and  artifice  as  testimony,  in  matters 
of  religion." 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  145 

sey  says,  p.  321,  "  And  when  were  Baptists  void  of  kind 
offices,  of  liberal  and  charitable  views  to  other  denomina- 
tions professing  Christianity  1" 

But  what  is  the  union  and  fellowship  which  Mr.  Wool- 
sey  so  much  admires,  and  of  which  our  Baptist  brethren 
are  so  desirous  1  A  fellowship  where  the  rights  of  con- 
science and  of  private  judgment  shall  be  held  sacred  1  A 
fellowship  in  which  we  shall  be  allowed  the  same 
liberty  to  practice  infant  baptism  as  our  Baptist  brethren 
to  reject  it  1  A  union  and  fellowship  in  which  every 
man  of  undoubted  piety,  of  sound  evangelical  views,  and, 
according  to  his  best  understanding,  yielding  obedience  to 
the  command  to  be  baptized,  shall  be  allowed  the  rights  of 
conscience,  and  not  compelled  to  yield  them  to  other  men 
as  fallible  as  himself,  on  penalty  of  being  thrust  away 
from  the  Lord's  table  and  shut  out  of  the  church  1  Here 
are  hundreds  and  thousands  of  enlightened  Christians; 
multitudes  of  them  as  extensively  and  as  deeply  learned  as 
any  among  the  Baptists.  Their  views  are  purely  evan- 
gelical. They  would  as  soon  give  their  bodies  to  be 
burned,  as  add  to,  or  detract  from  the  ordinances  of  Christ, 
After  long  and  careful  study  of  the  word  of  God;  after 
hearing  all  that  can  be  said  against  their  belief,  they  are 
confident  and  doubt  not,  that  sprinkling  and  pouring  are 
modes  of  baptism  fully  sanctioned  in  the  word  of  God  j 
and  that  the  word  of  God  requires  the  infant  children  of 
believing  parents  to  be  baptized.  We  might  bring  for- 
ward names  of  men  among  the  living  and  the  dead,  whose 
candor,  whose  learning,  whose  piety,  whose  diligence  in 
prayerfully  examining  the  question  in  debate,  no  one 
would  dare  to  question.  And  now  what  is  the  union 
which  Mr.  Woolsey  so  much  praises  1  What  is  the  fel- 
lowship which  is  "  as  the  dew  of  Hermon,  and  as  the 
dew  that  descended  upon  the  mountains  of  Zion  $"  the 


146  A   REFUTATION   OF 

union  for  which  he  exhorts  his  brethren  never  to  cease  to 
labor  and  to  pray  1  Is  it,  that  these  brethren,  equal  in 
learning,  equal  in  piety,  equal  in  the  tokens  of  the  divine 
acceptance,  may  sit  down  together,  forbear  to  vex  each 
other,  forbear  to  judge  over  each  other's  conscience,  for- 
bear each  to  set  up  a  claim  to  infallibility,  and  to  thrust 
his  brother  from  the  Lord's  house  and  table  unless  he  will 
give  up  his  conscience  to  the  control  of  his  brother  ] 

Such  is  the  fellowship  which  John  Bunyan  desired,  and 
for  advocating  which,  he  bore  so  many  "unhandsome 
brands '  from  brethren  whom  his  soul  nevertheless  loved 
as  his  life.  Such  is  the  fellowship  for  which  Robert  Hall 
pleaded  and  prayed.  But  such  is  not  the  fellowship  which 
Mr.  Woolsey  desires,  or  which  he  will  tolerate.  No  :  no 
matter  to  what  conclusion  we  come  when  with  much  dili- 
gence and  much  earnestness  we  have  studied  the  Bible  on 
our  knees ; — we  must  not  follow  our  own  judgment,  we 
must  bow  our  judgment  in  meek  submission  to  the  dogmas 
of  the  Baptists.  We  must  yield  our  conscience,  not  to  the 
word  of  God,  but  to  the  opinion  of  the  Baptists.  This  is 
the  only  fellowship  for  which  Mr.  Woolsey  pleads  or 
which  he  will  tolerate.  Till  we  yield  all  this,  he  will  never 
cease  to  contend  with  us.  Till  we  do  all  this,  he  will 
hold  out  to  our  churches  nothing  but  war  and  destruction. 
This  is  the  fellowship  which  he  offers  us.  The  Pope  of 
Rome,  armed  with  the  same  high  pretensions  of  infalli- 
bility, might  have  held  out  the  same  deceptive  and  cruel 
mockery  of  fellowship  and  union,  when  he  visited  the 
Waldeneses  with  fire  and  sword.  He  too  desired  fellow- 
ship and  union  :  but  it  was  the  union  of  despotism.  He 
still  labors  for  union,  but  he  will  have  no  peace,  no  tolera- 
tion for  anything  that  differs  from  his  own  belief.  The 
unity  which  he  praises,  is  unity  under  the  infallible  opi- 
nion of  the  Pope,  as  to  what  is  truth,  and  what  are  the  or- 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  147 

dinances  of  the  most  high  God.     The   unity  which  Mr. 
Woolsey  and  his  brethren  proposed  to  us  is  the  same.  They 
will  accord  us  their  fellowship  if  we  will  so  far  yield  to 
their  opinions  as  to  do  what  we  consider  as  adding  to  one 
part  of  an  ordinance  of  God,  and  destroying  another  ;  but 
refuse  this,  and  they  will  shut  us  away  from  the   Lord's 
table,  arid  cast  us  out  of  the  church.     "  Brethren"  say 
they,  "  we  are  rig'it.     We  KNOW  we  are  right  ;  and  we 
know  you  are  wrong."     But   are  you   then  infallible '! 
"  No,  but  we  KNOW  we  are  right  and  we  know  you  are 
wrong  /"     But,  brethren,  if  you  are  not  infallible,  how 
can  you  know  that  you  are  right  any  more  than  we  can 
know  that  you  are  wrong.     Has  the  Lord  any  where  given 
to  the  Baptists  the  exclusive  privilege  of  deciding  for  all 
their  brethren  1    Is  there  any  passage  of  Holy  Writ  which 
will  bear  us  guiltless  if  we  sacrifice  what  we  solemnly 
hold  as  the    word  and   the   ordinances    of  God,  to  the 
dictation  of  our  brethren,  who,  if  they  are  not  infallible 
are  as  likely  to  err  as  we  1  Still,  the  only  term  of  fel- 
lowship which  Mr.  Woolsey  and  his  brethren  propose  to 
us  is  this  j — "  We  are  right:   We  KNOW  we  are  right." 
Come  therefore  to  us :  give  up  everything  that  we  see 
fit  to  condemn,  submit  to  everything  that  we  see  fit  to  im- 
pose.    Join  with  us  in  compelling  all  others  to  abide  by 
our  judgment.     Do  this  5    and  O  there  shall  be  delight- 
ful fellowship !      It  shall  be    "  as  the  dew  of  Hermon, 
and  as  the  dew  that  descended  upon   the  mountains  of 
Zion."     But  entertain  scruples  of  conscience  in  this  mat- 
ter ;  presume  to  follow  your  own  judgment  rather  than 
ours  ;  obey  God  rather  than  us  ;  and  we  will  remove  you 
from  the  Lord's  table  ;  we  will  cast  you  from  the  church. 
Now  what  ought  we  to  answer  to  all  this  1     We  have 
examined ;  we  have  patiently  and  earnestly  examined : 
we  build  our  faith  and  practice  on  the    word  of  God : 


148  A   REFUTATION    OF 

for  our  lives — for  our  salvation,  we  cannot  come  to 
any  other  conclusion.  If  other  men  are  not  infallible, 
then  it  is  high-handed  arrogance  in  them  to  ask  us  to 
yield  our  conscience  and  our  judgment  to  their  opinion. 
If  other  men  are  not  infallible,  then  to  follow  the  word  of 
God  according  to  our  own  conscience  is  our  duty,  if  we 
would  obey  God  rather  than  man.  Our  Baptist  brethren 
ought  to  know  that  if  infallibility  rests  any  where  among 
mortal  men  the  Pope  of  Rome  makes  the  highest  preten- 
sions and  possesses  the  oldest  claim.  If  any  arguments 
can  show  that  we  ought  to  abide  by  the  judgment  of  the 
Baptists  to  the  abandonment  of  our  own,  will  not  our 
Baptist  brethren  by  the  same  arguments  be  compelled  to 
abandon  their  own  judgment,  and  submit  to  that  of  the 
Pope  1 

That  I  do  not  misunderstand  or  misinterpret  the  unity 
which  Mr.  Woolsey  inculcates,  I  think  no  one  who  reads 
his  book  can  fail  to  perceive.  He  is  not  arguing  agains 
close  communion,  and  against  that  repulsive,  excluding 
fellowship  that  shuts  the  true  spiritual  disciples  of  Christ, 
who  conscientiously  obey  his  commandments,  away  from 
his  table.  He  is  pleading  for  a  union  in  which  all  shall 
"  conform  to  the  most  ardent  wish  and  prayer  of  Bap- 
tists :"  (p.  320,)  a  union  in  which  "  the  different  portions 
of  the  church"  shall  come  together  in  pristine  order  ;" 
that  is,  to  the  "  pristine  order,"  as  he  understands  it.  No 
one  is  to  be  tolerated  as  having  the  least  rights  in  the 
church  of  Christ  if  his  conscientious  belief  differs  from  that 
of  Mr.  Woolsey.  He  is  not  for  a  "  union  and  fellowship 
in  which  Christians  of  equal  intelligence,  equal  piety,  of 
one  mind  with  regard  to  church  order  and  discipline,  of 
one  mind  with  regard  to  all  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of 
the  Bible,  may  live  and  labor  together  in  equal  participa- 
tion of  the  ordinances  and  privileges  of  the  church  of  God. 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  149 

No :  When  he  exhorts  his  brethren  "  not  to  cease  to  pray 
and  labor  for  union,"  his  meaning,  and  his  specific,  in- 
tended, and  only  meaning  is — Let  us  not  cease  to  pray 
and  labor  to  convert  all  to  immersion,  and  to  a  rejection 
of  infant  baptism.  This  is  the  brotherly  and  affectionate 
duty  which  he  is  urging  with  so  much  pathos.  This,  I  re- 
peat it,  is  his  direct  meaning ;  and  to  me  it  seems,  that  to 
make  such  an  exhortation  to  unity  and  fellowship  with 
such  a  design  and  meaning,  is  to  make  a  most  unhallowed 
mockery  of  the  most  holy  words. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  often  endeavor  to  maintain  still  a 
show  of  "  union,"  of  "  fellowship,"  nay,  even  of  "commu- 
nion," by  what  I  cannot  but  regard  as  a  paltering  upon 
the  sense  of  these  precious  words :  "  Why,"  say  they, 
"  fellowship  and  communion  do  not  mean  exclusively  com- 
munion at  the  Lord's  table.  We  can  still  sing,  and  pray, 
and  labor  together,  and  have  fellowship  as  far  as  we  are 
agreed.  We  hold  you  as  Christians ;  we  are  willing  to 
treat  you  as  new  converts,  but  we  cannot  admit  you  to 
the  Lord's  table."  If  it  be  wrong  for  them  to  admit  us  to 
the  Lord's  table,  it  can  be  so  only  because  it  is  wrong  for 
us  to  come.  Treat  us  as  new  converts !  Is  this  all  1  Is  it 
nothing  to  be  shut  out  of  the  church,  and  to  be  cut  off  from 
the  Lord's  table  1  Do  they  call  this  fellowship  and  com- 
munion, the  only  terms  of  which  are  to  be  barely  tolerated 
by  our  brethren  in  standing  without  the  walls  of  Zion,  cut 
off  from  her  holy  ordinances  and  her  cheering  provisions  1 
Can  there  be  no  union  save  that  in  which  we  must  consent 
to  be  treated  as  not  of  Christ's  church,  and  having  no  right 
to  his  table  1  Can  we,  in  justice  to  ourselves  and  to  our 
children,  and  in  faithfulness  to  the  truth  and  to  religious 
liberty,  accept  the  hand  of  fellowship  that  is  tendered  to  us 
on  no  other  conditions  than  these  1  Treat  us  as  new  con- 
verts !  On  what  principle  1  by  virtue  of  what  right  1  ac- 
13 


150  A   REFUTATION    OF 

cording  to  what  analogy  1  New  converts  have  as  yet 
made  no  formal  profession  of  religion.  There  are  conditions 
to  be  complied  with,  which  they  themselves  acknowledge, 
and  which  their  own  consciences  recognize  as  necessary 
qualifications  to  entitle  them  to  the  privileges  of  the  church 
of  Christ.  Nothing  is  required  of  them,  save  what  they 
themselves  feel  bound  to  submit  to  upon  being  admitted  to 
a  standing  in  the  church.  In  their  case  it  is  confessedly 
a  duty  delayed  or  neglected.  Not  so  in  ours  5  we  claim 
to  be  regularly  in  the  church — we  claim  that  our  churches 
are  regular  churches  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ — we  claim 
to  have  been  regularly  baptized — we  have  neither  refused 
this  duty  nor  delayed  it.  Now  where  do  our  brethren 
find  their  warrant  in  judging  over  our  consciences  in  this 
matter  1  Treat  us  as  new  converts !  Then  they  do  not 
recognize  us  as  members  of  the  church  of  Christ !  Our 
churches  they  recognize  not  as  churches  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ !  Our  ministry  are  no  ministers  of  the  church  of 
our  Lord  Jesus !  Our  ordinances  are  not  ordinances  of 
the  Lord's  church  ; — but  all  is  usurpation,  presumption, 
an  unhallowed  handling  of  most  holy  things !  The  terms 
of  fellowship  propounded  to  us  require  us  to  submit  to  be 
treated  according  to  these  principles.  And  treating  us  act 
cording  to  these  principles— requiring  us  virtually  to  admi- 
this  as  often  as  we  come  together,  our  brethren  talk  about 
"  fellowship,"  "  union,"  and  even  "  communion !  "  Treat 
us  as  new  converts !  If  these  principles  are  correct,  are 
we  innocent  as  new  converts  1  Ought  we  to  be  treated 
simply  as  new  converts  1  Yet  our  ministers  may  come, 
and  welcome,  into  their  pulpits.  They  may  do  the  work 
of  teachers  in  the  church  of  Christ— they  may  be  allowed 
to  "  feed  the  flock  of  God  " — and  then,  immediately  upon 
descending  from  the  station  where  they  have  been  suffered 
to  teach  the  people  and  to  bless  them  in  God's  name,  they 
must  be  shut  out  and  driven  away  by  that  same  people 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  151 

from  partaking  of  the  emblems  of  the  Lord's  body  and 
blood !  Yes,  because  his  judgment  differs  from  theirs  con- 
cerning the  mere  ceremony  of  an  ordinance,  they  would, 
if  they  could,  prevent  the  man  whom  they  regard  as  a  con- 
scientious and  evangelical  Christian,  and  whom  they  are 
willing  to  have  teach  themselves  and  their  children,  as 
a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ — they  would,  if  they  could,  for- 
ever prevent  this  man  from  obeying  the  command  of  his 
Savior,  "  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me  " — till  such  a 
time  as  he  shall  meekly  submit  to  their  judgment  in  this 
matter,  and  bend  his  conscience  to  theirs  !  As  they  treat 
him,  so  they  treat  all  other  Christians  and  all  other  churches 
on  earth.* 

On  our  part,  although  we  feel  that  we  have  quite  as 
much  reason  as  any  others  to  be  confident  in  the  correct- 
ness of  our  faith  and  order,  we  are  for  a  fellowship  of  a 
wider  extent,  of  more  liberal  terms,  and  more  deserving  of 
the  name  of  fellowship  than  this.  In  the  present  state  of 
the  world  we  deem  it  too  much  for  any  one  sect  among 
Protestants  to  set  up  its  own  as  the  standard  to  which  all 
others  must  conform :  require  all  other  Christians  to  give 
up  their  own  organizations,  and  come  in  "by  the  door  "  of 
that  little  sect,  on  pain  of  being  treated  as  all  out  of  the 
pale  and  communion  of  the  visible  church  on  earth.  We 


*  And  when  our  Baptist  brethren  have  done  all  this,  they  add 
to  the  injury  by  coolly  affirming,  and  laboring  to  prove,  that  we 
act  on  the  same  principles,  and  do  the  same  thing.  [See  the  tract 
*«  Peter  and  Benjamin,"  published  by  the  Baptist  General  Tract  Soci- 
ety.] To  make  such  an  affirmation  anything  else  than  abuse,  and 
such  an  argument  anything  but  sophistry,  it  should  be  shown  that 
we  debar  from  the  communion  evangelical  Christians,  who  have 
been  regularly  received  into  some  regular  and  Evangelical  Church, 
and  who  are  in  regular  standing  in  such  church.  But  this,  it  is 
well  known,  is  not  true. 


152  A   REFUTATION   OF 

know  not  that  our  Lord  has  given  to  any  one  sect  among 
his  followers  such  a  prerogative  as  this.  Were  it  certain 
that  he  has  lodged  such  a  prerogative  with  any,  it  is  yet 
in  doubt  to  whom  he  has  given  it.  He  blesses  the  labors 
of  his  servants  among  all  evangelical  denominations.  He 
communes  with  his  people  of  every  name.  .  By  so  doing 
he  seems  to  say  to  all  his  people,  "  What  God  hath  cleansed 
that  call  not  thou  common."  "  The  churches  which  your 
Savior  owns,  and  among  which  he  dwells,  these  own  ye 
as  churches,  unless  ye  would  judge  and  excommunicate 
your  Lord."  On  this  principle  we  act.  We  deem  it  too 
much  for  any  one  sect  among  Christians  so  numerous,  so 
intelligent,  and  so  equally  owned  of  their  common  Lord,  to 
undertake  the  work  of  proselyting  all  other  denominations 
to  itself.  We  think  that  such  a  principle,  and  the  direct 
efforts  to  accomplish  such  a  labor,  must  powerfully  tend  to 
give  to  such  a  sect,  among  other  Christians,  the  character- 
istics of  Ishmael — his  hand  against  every  man,  and  every 
man's  hand  against  him.  Certainly  such  a  principle  acted 
on  by  all  sects  must  make  mere  Ishmaelites  of  the  whole 
Christian  world.  One  sect  acting  on  this  principle,  others 
must  be  compelled  to  act  on  the  defensive,  unless  they 
will  submit  to  be  unceasingly  plundered  without  resist- 
ance. We  would  that  there  might  be  a  truce  to  a  war  so 
unlovely  and  profitless.*  We  would  that  all  evangelical 


*  The  two  following  extracts  from  Dr.  Woods  and  Dr.  Kurtz, 
will  show  what  a  coincidence  there  is  hf  the  observations  of  aged  and 
grave  men  in  the  North  and  in  the  South,  as  to  the  actual  influence 
of  the  principle  of  close  communion. 

Says  Dr.  Woods,  p.  171,  "  And  here,  as  J  am  about  to  take  my 
leave  of  the  subject,  I  must  solicit  the  candid  indulgence  of  those 
who  differ  from  me  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  Baptism,  wviile  I  allow 
myself  in  great  plainness  of  speech,  and  utter  my  thoughts  seriously 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  153 

bodies  of  Christians  banded  together  in  church  estate,  hold- 
ing the  great  doctrines  of  salvation,  and  conscientiously  en- 
deavoring to  obey  the  word  of  God  according  to  their 
best  understanding,  may  be  treated  as  Churches  of  our 
Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ.  On  points  wherein  they 


and  unreservedly,  as  in  the  presence  of  Him  who  is  the  Savior  and 
Judge  of  the  world."         *         *        *         *         * 

'*  Have  these  great  spiritual  interests  been  always  kept  upper- 
most in  the  mind?  *  *  *  Have  they  not  too  frequently 
been  made  subordinate  to  local  or  sectarian  interests  ?  I  have 
heard  of  Christians,  and  of  Gospel  Ministers,  who  have  made  the 
mode  of  Baptism  their  grand,  engrossing  subject.  I  have  heard  of 
those  who  have  been  actuated  by  such  an  intense  zeal  in  favor  of 
one  particular  form  of  this  external  rite,  that  they  have  seemed 
almost  inclined  to  make  it  the  sum  of  all  religion.  Even  in  those 
auspicious  seasons,  when  God  is  pleased  in  mercy  to  pour  out  his 
Spirit,  and  produce,  in  the  minds  of  multitudes,  a  deep  and  over- 
whelming impression  of  the  evil  of  sin  and  the  value  of  eternal  sal- 
vation— there  are  some  Christians,  and  some  teachers  of  religion, 
(I  hope  the  number  will  be  found  to  be  small,)  who  show  an  unac- 
countable forwardness  to  introduce  discussions  respecting  the  mode 
of  Baptism;  and  instead  of  striving,  with  all  their  hearts,  to  bring 
sinners  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  *o  promote  the  holiness  of 
believers,  make  it  a  favorite  object  to  convince  them,  that  baptism 
should  not  be  administered  by  sprinkling,  but  by  immersion." 

Says  Dr.  Kurtz,  p.  295,  after  describing  the  hallowed  scenes  of 
a  revival — c<  In  the  midst  of  these  hallowed  exercises  a  note  of  dis 
cord  is  unexpectedly  heard  :  a  gruff  and  grating  sound  interrupts 
and  mars  the  harmony  of  the  whole  scene.  The  attention  of  all  is 
arrested  ;  they  look  to  see  whence  this  untimely  disturbance  pro- 
ceeds ;  and  behold,  a  warm-hearted  Baptist  brother  has  made  his 
appearance,  and  the  air  trembles  beneath  the  sound  of  his  voice,  as 
he  exclaims,  full  of  zeal  for  his  favorite  doctrine,  c<  The  river !  the 
river !  you  must  all  be  '  buried  under  the  water ! '  if  you  wish  to 
enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven !  "  Thus,  instead  of  co-operating  with 
his  brethren,  with  all  his  heart,  to  bring  sinners  to  Christ,  and  pro- 
mote the  holiness  of  believers,  he  labors  to  convince  them  that  Bap- 
titm  should  not  be  administered  by  sprinkling,  but  by  plunging.13 


154  A   REFUTATION   OF 

cannot  agree,  we  would  that  they  might  agree  to  differ  in 
peace  ;  living  together,  not  only  in  love,  but  treating  each 
other's  peculiar  views  with  kindness  and  respect ,  and 
leaving  it  for  time,  the  influence  of  kind  feelings,  the  love 
of  the  truth,  and  the  providence  and  the  good  Spirit  of 
God,  to  undermine  and  destroy  everything  that  is  not  ac- 
cording to  the  truth  and  order  of  the  Gospel : — and  at  last, 
even  if  all  denominational  differences  may  not  be  quite 
abolished  and  effaced — that  all  Christians  may  be  one — 
the  Church  one  as  Israel  was  one,  while  yet  there  was  a 
distinction  of  families  and  tribes. 

In  such  a  fellowship,  far  more  than  in  marshalling  the 
several  denominations  into  conflicting  hosts  of  proselyters 
— far  more  than  in  attempting  to  coerce  each  other  into 
submission  by  unchurching  each  other  or  putting  up  the 
bars  of  close  communion,  the  truth  would  hasten  on  to  its 
final  glory  and  its  universal  triumph.  In  such  a  fellow- 
ship we  feel  that  we  have  nothing  to  fear.*  Let  them  who 
would  fear  for  their  party  under  the  influence  of  such  a 
fellowship  contend  for  a  fellowship  of  less  liberal  terms. 

But  if  churches  of  different  names  are  to  live  together 
in  such  a  fellowship  as  this,  it  is  evident  that  they  must 
treat  each  other  as  churches ;  and  not  as  irregular  and 
usurping  companies  of  "new  converts,"  whose  members 
it  is  a  charity  to  proselyte,  and  whose  children  it  is  a  deed 
of  mercy  and  of  duty  to  plunder  away.  It  must  by  com- 


*  The  great  Andrew  Fuller,  (no  man  ever  stood  higher  among 
the  Baptists,)  says,  *'  The  tendency  of  mixed  communion  is  to  an- 
nihilate, as  such,  all  the  Baptist  churches  in  Christendom."  He 
adds,  "  Do  you  wish  to  promote  the  dissolution  and  ruin  of  the 
Baptist  denomination  as  suck  ?  If  you  do  not,  take  heed  to  your 
ways."  Is  not  this,  after  all,  the  secret  of  close  communion  ?  And 
what  sort  of  cause  is  that,  which,  if  you  let  it  stand  on  its  own 
merits,  is  admitted  by  so  able  a  defender,  to  be  sure  to  fall  ? 


BAPTIST   ERRORS.  155 

mon  consent  be  deemed  a  breach  of  this  compact  of  fel- 
lowship, and  a  deed  of  ill-neighborhood  upon  which  the 
world  shall  frown,  for  one  sect,  insidiously  and  on  system, 
to  enter  the  families  of  another  congregation  for  the  pur- 
pose of  drawing  them  away  from  their  customary  place  of 
worship,  and  to  turn  even  the  members  of  the  Church 
away  from  their  faith  and  covenant.     It  must  indeed  be 
lawful  for  every  sect,  in  its  own  place  of  worship,  and  on 
suitable  times  and  occasions,  to  set  forth  and  defend  the 
reasons  of  its  peculiar  views.     But  industriously  to  scatter 
sectarian  books  and  tracts  among  the  families  of  another 
Church  and  congregation  5 — to  make  it  a  matter  of  daily 
labor  to  visit  from  house  to  house  wherever  an  individual 
member  of  another  church  and  congregation  may  be  found 
whom  there  may  be  any  hope  of  drawing  away  ; — to  seize 
on  all  occasions,  which  draw  promiscuous  crowds  together,* 
to  set  forth  sectarian  views,  with  every  sort  of  effort  to  dis- 
parage and  bring  into  contempt  the  views  of  other  denomi- 
nations 5 — this  is  a  work  that  must  cease  if  there  is  to  be 
any  fellowship  among  Christians  of  different  denomina- 
tions, such  as  becomes  the  disciples  of  Christ.     In  one 
word,  the  churches  of  evangelical  denominations  must  be 
treated  as  churches.     Those  exclusive  principles  which 
lead  one  sect  to  unchurch  all  other  denominations,  and  to 
close  up  the  doors  of  communion  against  their  members, 
must  cease  to  urge  on  any  one  denomination  of  Christians 
to  the  unlovely  and  mischievous,  not  to  say  the  unchristian, 


*  What  would  be  thought, — what  would  be  said,  if  Congregation, 
alists  and  Presbyterians  should  seize  on  every  occasion  of  a  bap* 
tism — to  set  forth  their  denominational  views  at  the  expense  of 
those  of  the  Baptists  ?  What !  That  they  thought  more  of  their 
sectarian  views  than  of  the  solemnity  and  import  of  the  ordinance, 
or  of  God. 


156  A  REFUTATION   OF   BAPTIST   ERRORS. 

work  of  proselyting  the  whole  world  to  the  views  of  that 
single  sect ;  or  there  cannot  be  among  the  different  denomi- 
nations any  fellowship  that  is  worthy  of  the  name. 

A  fellowship  on  equal  terms  ;  a  fellowship  on  Christian 
and  liberal  principles  among  all  evangelical  Christians,  I 
can  truly  say, — and  I  believe  I  speak  the  feelings  and  the 
principles  of  the  denomination  to  which  I  belong, — my 
soul  greatly  desires.  Come  the  auspicious  day  when  Ju- 
dah  shall  no  more  vex  Ephraim  nor  Ephraim  Judah. 
Come  the  auspicious  day, — it  will  be  no  less  joyous  on 
earth  than  welcome  in  heaven, — when  Christians  of  all 
names  shall  be  less  distinct  as  differing  sects,  than  they  are 
one  in  their  common  Lord.  Surely  that  period  cannot  be 
far  distant  from  the  full  glory  of  the  latter  day. 


' 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $I.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


.i-inn«i.7 


' 

"ftfntat: 

-hts-h    "i 

.on  of  sur-.-  \. 

*  " 

/           / 

UL  16  W*l 

377^  a^/T   ^ 

UL1B  1941 

/ 

^ 

U3 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


